Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:28:44
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by William Hubbs
1 15.01.2014 03:11, William Hubbs пишет:
2 > The status quo is not good, because we are forced to keep old, and
3 > potentially buggy, versions of software around longer than necessary.
5 <arch team member opinion>
6 But both of suggested solutions will break the whole idea of stabling.
7 Dropping packages to unstable on regular basis will annoy our users.
9 If we have old stable package, it builds and works correctly in new
10 environment(new gcc, glibc etc), then i do not see the point in rushing
11 things up, unless there are some more critical things, that needs new
12 version of this package. Stable should be reasonable. Each new version
13 of package contains bugfixes, it is true. But we should note, that new
14 versions(even so-called bugfix releases) can also bring new bugs.
15 </arch team member>
18 --
19 Best regards, Sergey Popov
20 Gentoo developer
21 Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead
22 Gentoo Qt project lead
23 Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature