From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92652138247 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 01:09:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 14C9AE0A8B; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 01:09:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jacques.telenet-ops.be (jacques.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.50]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2B4BE09FF for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 01:08:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TOMWIJ-GENTOO ([94.226.55.127]) by jacques.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id E18y1n00H2khLEN0J18yR0; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:08:58 +0100 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:08:02 +0100 From: Tom Wijsman To: mjo@gentoo.org Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Message-ID: <20140115020802.700b1568@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> In-Reply-To: <52D5DAB6.1000609@gentoo.org> References: <20140114213719.GA2684@laptop.home> <52D5B2CA.5030407@gentoo.org> <20140114223312.GA3337@laptop.home> <52D5BDAD.4030808@gentoo.org> <20140114231113.GA3393@laptop.home> <52D5DAB6.1000609@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.22; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/P=9pzMI96ZU2k+CzjNJ.aei"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 714665f3-4780-460c-9846-9ab0b2e72ccf X-Archives-Hash: 39e0429cdc816001de8116217003acbc --Sig_/P=9pzMI96ZU2k+CzjNJ.aei Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 19:47:50 -0500 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 01/14/2014 06:11 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > >> > >> For users, both options are worse than the status quo. > >=20 > > The first option would start reverting things back to ~ and users > > would have to unmask them. > >=20 > > The second option would introduce new things to stable which may > > not be stable due to not being tested on the arch. > >=20 > > The second option is worse than the first imo, that's why I didn't > > propose it first. > >=20 > > The status quo is not good, because we are forced to keep old, and > > potentially buggy, versions of software around longer than > > necessary. >=20 > 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. --=20 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 --Sig_/P=9pzMI96ZU2k+CzjNJ.aei Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJS1d9yAAoJEJWyH81tNOV9tiIH/RXERP1MhSa55NaG47niWxBd Ejd0GbIwhfaERYSds7zGqcF2diiXeQ0zWOOJ3AJAr9rswCX9sY4J7SUL0hxZNUpN GisepTncLUtWbcFAm3/2HLa3s5J7Kh9G/+PGn/zixt7aBdX/Im2bFy6VcaQxtewD MRfxNLwxoYHsLgn/LJp76ADDP4eQgHTkcxryvAvWbqnEdRJQ9mwtrvj5/0TVo9UR C36HF7PTDKlAQiH2k0Px8xALSBSertig4ub6tnifQYCFdbR8Lxj8nRKX4rlGE23+ PY/b+iDpu3E9uLV2gDG9oQL8F4Mf+p1XDM4M5xAL6SJcPzVjTlYP3Yer0Go7nzo= =2lXC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/P=9pzMI96ZU2k+CzjNJ.aei--