| 1 |
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 10:18:32 -0500 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Many objected to removal since old with minor issues is better than |
| 5 |
> new that doesn't work at all on some archs, or so the argument goes. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
TL;DR: The opposite exists, I think we should draw a bar in the middle. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
So goes the counter-argument; that an old version has some growing |
| 10 |
issues (hidden security bugs get found, instability bugs are left |
| 11 |
around, regressions are discovered, library dependencies get stabilized |
| 12 |
but the package itself wasn't properly checked, ...) which are fixed in |
| 13 |
a newer version, makes the new version better. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
This could then allow one to rewrite the mail you wrote from the |
| 16 |
complete opposite viewpoint; my point here is that, without rehashing |
| 17 |
the discussion we had on this somewhere else in this long thread, that |
| 18 |
the situation isn't as black on white as one would love to. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Making a claim "older [or newer] is most of the times better" requires a |
| 21 |
quite a complex proof, but that shouldn't really be needed here. I agree |
| 22 |
that your mention in another paragraph about "need to remove it" |
| 23 |
definitely makes it more clear cut; although, that need can come |
| 24 |
forward out of the presence of bugs and blocking stabilization requests. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
The question here might rather be "how old is old?"; because if we're |
| 27 |
talking about an old version of a year ago, that has quite a different |
| 28 |
notion than an old version of several years ago. We can draw the bar |
| 29 |
somewhere in between and we'll be fine... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
With kind regards, |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 35 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 38 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 39 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives