| 1 |
On 08/05/2016 01:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 6:22 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> > On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 11:12:24PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> >> |
| 5 |
>>> >> Thank you for caring about this issue. I had similar thoughts |
| 6 |
>>> >> myself, but was too slow on writing e-mail :) IMO stable tree has |
| 7 |
>>> >> three problems: |
| 8 |
>>> >> 1) too old packages |
| 9 |
>>> >> 2) too few packages |
| 10 |
>>> >> 3) stabilization often takes too long, such stable packages are |
| 11 |
>>> >> broken or buggy, while their unstable versions are fixed and work |
| 12 |
>>> >> fine. (It is not possible to fix all bugs without version or |
| 13 |
>>> >> revision bump, thus stabilization is needed to fix many bugs.) |
| 14 |
>> > |
| 15 |
>> > "too few packages" doesn't really affect things much, I'm more |
| 16 |
>> > concerned about 1 and 3. If packages are not stable in the first place, |
| 17 |
>> > that is because the maintainer hasn't requested stabilization, and that |
| 18 |
>> > is a separate issue. |
| 19 |
> I'm less concerned with old (within reason) and few. I think the |
| 20 |
> primary criteria has to always be that the packages are reliable. If |
| 21 |
> somebody wants to make the tradeoff less reliability and fresher |
| 22 |
> packages they can just install testing. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
+1 |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
| 29 |
OpenPGP certificate reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
| 30 |
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |
Archives