| 1 |
On 2017-07-12 00:26, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> Question is what's more a problem: Having an outdated stable |
| 4 |
>> package because nobody cared about stabilizing a new version (in |
| 5 |
>> most cases this will end with a rushed stabilization once a |
| 6 |
>> security bug was fixed in the package) or move a package in time |
| 7 |
>> from ~ARCH to ARCH and deal with the fallout sometimes. |
| 8 |
> Easy, keep the working package any time |
| 9 |
Seconded. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
That said, let me repeat something I mentioned during the last |
| 12 |
discussion about stabilisation procedures: for me at least the problem |
| 13 |
with stabilisation has never really been with version upgrades, it's |
| 14 |
with packages which do not even have a single stable version. For |
| 15 |
reference, as of right now my "version bump" keyword file lists 8 atoms |
| 16 |
(half of them referring to GIMP-2.9, which should not be stabilised |
| 17 |
anyway) - whereas my "not in stable" file lists 61. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
MS |
Archives