Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 00:59:26
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by Duncan <>
1 On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote:
2 > I've often wondered just how much faster gentoo could move, and how much
3 > better we could keep up with upstream, if we weren't so focused on 30+day
4 > outdated stab?l3 bumping all the time. All that effort... from my
5 > viewpoint going to waste on something that gentoo really isn't going to
6 > be that great at anyway, certainly in comparison to other distros which
7 > REALLY provide a stab?le service, up to a /decade/ outdated, supporting
8 > often trailing edge software, in an effort to slow down progress for
9 > people that don't want to move so fast.
11 I get what you're saying, and I'm going to use a bit of hyperbole so
12 don't take this too seriously, but couldn't you just as easily argue
13 that Gentoo could go much faster if we actually took advantage of the
14 fact that we DO have a stable tree, and stop being so careful about
15 not breaking the testing tree?
17 Honestly, I think both trees represent a pretty decent balance. It is
18 pretty safe to run ~arch for the packages you really are interested
19 in, and run stable for the stuff that you don't care so much about,
20 thus limiting your exposure to problems while getting cutting-edge
21 where you care for it.
23 Most of the concern in this thread has been about some minor archs
24 that struggle to keep up. It seems like the simplest solution in
25 these cases is to just have them focus on @system packages for the
26 stable tree, and let users deal with more breakage outside of that set
27 (where it isn't super-disruptive). If you're running a minor arch
28 chances are that you're happy to have any support at all, since you
29 sure aren't going to be running Ubuntu...
31 Rich


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se>
[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>