| 1 |
On 08/04/2016 06:24 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> I feel that our stable tree is so far behind on all |
| 3 |
> architectures that we are doing our stable users a disservice, so I |
| 4 |
> would like to open up a discussion here, and maybe some policy changes |
| 5 |
> at the next meeting. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Far behind isn't necessarily a problem as long as it doesn't have bugs, |
| 8 |
in particular security related ones. Updating too often (without a good |
| 9 |
reason) can also be annoying enough. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Ultimately, I think we need some form of automated stabilization, e.g. |
| 13 |
> if a package version sits in ~ for 30 days and there are no blockers at |
| 14 |
> that point, the new version should go automatically to stable on all |
| 15 |
> architectures where there is a previous stable version. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I LOUDLY disagree. The stable tree should not be compromised by such |
| 18 |
automation, it is already bad enough without proper use-testing in some |
| 19 |
cases. Stable isn't only about building properly. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
| 23 |
OpenPGP certificate reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
| 24 |
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |
Archives