| 1 |
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> And so far, nobody but me and Patrick basically cared about dependency |
| 4 |
> graph not being broken. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Don't assume discussion of alternatives is equivalent to not caring. |
| 8 |
The reasons for not breaking the depgraph were fairly well articulated |
| 9 |
- it doesn't really add much to repeat them. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Personally I'm leaning more towards making the entire arches |
| 12 |
non-stable, but I'd still prefer to have a policy that can be applied |
| 13 |
across all archs, and it doesn't make sense to make all archs |
| 14 |
non-stable. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
-- |
| 17 |
Rich |
Archives