| 1 |
On 12/21/17 15:11, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> Part of me wonders if issues with stable are causing issues with |
| 3 |
> ~arch. If stable is regarded as stale that is going to push people |
| 4 |
> into ~arch who really intend to have stable systems. That said you do |
| 5 |
> want testing systems to have a reasonably low bug count because it is |
| 6 |
> kind of hard to test the latest chromium beta when X11 isn't working. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
Don't wonder anymore, this already happened, however it has to be noted |
| 9 |
that different part of the tree are different. |
| 10 |
Most famous server packages (apache, nginx, postfix, mysql posgrees) are |
| 11 |
in good shape, stable here is pretty usable and working well. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
When the target is a desktop system however things change and you are |
| 14 |
pushed to a partially ~arch system and soon thereafter to a full |
| 15 |
unstable install. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
This is only partially imputable to the (lack of) manpower, increased |
| 18 |
number of installed packages, infinitely bigger use flag permutation and |
| 19 |
functionality, in short complexity make very difficult to have a stable |
| 20 |
system that stay stable. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Stable has to be stable in different point in times, and it's not enough |
| 23 |
to wait a month of user test, that's a good start, but it should be |
| 24 |
constantly monitored in a changing environment. This is very difficult |
| 25 |
when thare are 2000pkgs installed instead of 500. |
Archives