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 F1BC3139694 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2017 19:11:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A983C1FC063; Sat, 29 Jul 2017 19:11:04 +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 634B01FC059 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2017 19:11:04 +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 EAF7A341A84 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2017 19:11:02 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1501355459.7122.3.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: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 21:10:59 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1501346499.14393.3.camel@gentoo.org> References: <20170724222223.6d359e47@sf> <20170724232244.GT12397@stuge.se> <1931696.H1tAJ0QB7a@porto> <509ce16c-bd75-83f2-9c58-802c0b01ac77@gentoo.org> <1501346499.14393.3.camel@gentoo.org> 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: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 084aa47e-88a0-4127-a94f-5a6eff0b03a6 X-Archives-Hash: 4c8bc7635974d3cce982430c04996355 On Sat, 2017-07-29 at 19:41 +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > > why take away the stable choice? > > I think it is rather clear that stable keywords aren't going anywhere > for architectures like amd64. I suggest we drop all of the subthreads > on this topic and get back to other interesting thoughts (which may > include dropping stable for some other arches of course; I mean doing > it for all doesn't deserve e-mails imo). > > > Mart > I demand you stop asking for dropping stable for "some other arches", otherwise I might have to stop arch testing on ppc and sparc.