| 1 |
On 22/11/15 05:51, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 07:01:21 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 5 |
>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:12 AM, Alexander Berntsen <bernalex@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> When I do QA in projects I'm involved with (at least outside of |
| 7 |
>>> Gentoo), we don't do it live on end-user systems. I'll leave the |
| 8 |
>>> details as an exercise for the Gentoo developer. |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> People who run ~arch are not really end-users - they're contributors |
| 12 |
>> who have volunteered to test packages. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I strongly disagree with you. We do not use stable even at |
| 15 |
> enterprise grade production systems and HPC setups. Stable is just |
| 16 |
> too freaking old in order to be usable for our purposes, not to |
| 17 |
> mention that it lacks many packages at all. We tried stable |
| 18 |
> several times, it just freaks out admins (including myself) too |
| 19 |
> badly or results in horrible mess of stable and unstable which is |
| 20 |
> less stable that unstable setups. I do not use stable at |
| 21 |
> workstations and personal setups as well. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Nevertheless I consider stable useful as stabilization process |
| 24 |
> gives more testing for packages (and some fixes are forward ported |
| 25 |
> to unstable versions). Of course I understand that there are people |
| 26 |
> using it and I try to support stable packages as well, but these |
| 27 |
> versions are mostly a burden and I can't really understand stable |
| 28 |
> users. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Is the state of stable really that bad? I see this sentiment a lot. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I run mostly-stable systems and rarely have an issue with old/missing |
| 33 |
packages (but I'm involved in the maintenance of many of the packages I |
| 34 |
use so I try to keep on top of stable requests). |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Are there particular areas that are lagging particularly, or is it just |
| 37 |
in general? |
Archives