Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy

[Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1382 bytes --]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 19:47:50 -0500
Michael Orlitzky <mjo@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 01/14/2014 06:11 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> >>
> >> For users, both options are worse than the status quo.
> > 
> > The first option would start reverting things back to ~ and users
> > would have to unmask them.
> > 
> > The second option would introduce new things to stable which may
> > not be stable due to not being tested on the arch.
> > 
> > The second option is worse than the first imo, that's why I didn't
> > propose it first.
> > 
> > The status quo is not good, because we are forced to keep old, and
> > potentially buggy, versions of software around longer than
> > necessary.
> 
> So you're going to force stable users onto the unstable, untested
> version, which they could have done anyway if they wanted to. Strictly
> worse than the status quo (where it's optional).

This is under the assumption that the user knows of the state of the
stabilization worsening; if the user is unaware of that change, the
"could have done anyway" might be less common and first something bad
would need to happen before they realize the worsened stabilization.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]