Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations

[Mart Raudsepp <leio@gentoo.org>]

On E, 2010-06-28 at 09:49 +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> said:
> > On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 08:15:32PM +0200, Auke Booij wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> 
> wrote:
> > > > What? I am talking about exotic arches and I didn't say to drop to
> > > > entire stable tree. Just to shrink it in order to keep it up to
> > > > date more easily
> > > 
> > > But my question stands: what really is the advantage of having a
> > > stable tree, when you could better invest your time in keeping the
> > > testing tree up to date and working? Most production systems are
> > > running x86, right? Are stable versions of minority architecture
> > > installations really that much more stable than testing versions?
> > 
> > Because a stable tree it is supposed to work. Testing tree on the other
> > hand is vulnerable to breakages from time to time. We can't always
> > ensure a working testing tree. We are people not machines. We tend to
> > brake things and this is way we have the testing branch.
> 
> also the stable tree implies security support (GLSAs etc).

Stable tree does NOT imply security support. I can understand why users
might think that, though.
A few architectures that have a stable tree are not security supported
(GLSAs waiting for them, etc), as can be seen from comparing the arches
with stable trees to the security supported architectures list over at
http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/vulnerability-policy.xml
(at least arm, ia64 and sh by my quick comparison)


-- 
Mart Raudsepp
Gentoo Developer
Mail: leio@gentoo.org
Weblog: http://blogs.gentoo.org/leio