| 1 |
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable) |
| 9 |
> > carries with it an unneccessary cost. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> That's not feasible. It would kill off any semi-professional or |
| 13 |
> professional |
| 14 |
> Gentoo use, where a minimum of stability is required. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
So my argument (for years) has been that this is the right thing all along. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
If people want a stable Gentoo, fork it and maintain it downstream of the |
| 20 |
rambunctious rolling distro. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> (Try keeping ~10 machines on stable running without automation. That's |
| 25 |
> already |
| 26 |
> quite some work. Now try the same with ~arch. Now imagine you're talking |
| 27 |
> about |
| 28 |
> 100 or 1000 machines.) |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> -- |
| 31 |
> Andreas K. Hüttel |
| 32 |
> dilfridge@g.o |
| 33 |
> Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice) |
Archives