From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7262139694 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 21:21:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 342641FC142; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 21:21:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEE811FC124 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 21:21:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from thinkpad.fritz.box (cable-static-236-115.teleport.ch [213.188.236.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: soap) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7D2FD341914 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 21:21:39 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1501276886.7122.0.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts? From: David Seifert To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 23:21:26 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <20170724222223.6d359e47@sf> <20170724232244.GT12397@stuge.se> <1931696.H1tAJ0QB7a@porto> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 02d5eed1-532e-4744-803b-f1193ca488b2 X-Archives-Hash: d86441e11df3eb729768f4da4a990576 On Fri, 2017-07-28 at 15:59 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 23:10:35 +1000 > "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote: > > > On 28 July 2017 8:44:20 PM AEST, "Andreas K. Huettel" > > wrote: > > > > > That's not feasible. It would kill off any semi-professional or > > > professional  > > > Gentoo use, where a minimum of stability is required.  > > > > > > (Try keeping ~10 machines on stable running without automation. > > > That's already  > > > quite some work. Now try the same with ~arch. Now imagine you're > > > talking about  > > > 100 or 1000 machines.)   > > > > And further, try proposing that to management - that you'll be > > managing hosts on a platform that has no "stable" to speak of. > > The professional/management argument is silly. Most avoid Gentoo. > Most companies, want to be able to pay for support. Not to mention > certifications and such for those they hire. None of which Gentoo has > regardless of stability. Not to mention reputation... > > Those that tend to run Gentoo have their own interest in such.  I > have > seen many migrate from rather than to Gentoo. Large companies, who's > names we would all know. One of the few left is Meetup.com. They run > Gentoo as do some others. Seems Tivo does stuff with Gentoo, Google, > Sony, etc. Some tend to hire Gentoo devs... > Seriously, can you please stop your diatribes. I am so absolutely fed up by your DoS'ing of the ML with your pointless points.