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 681CE138247 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:45:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F2B78E0C6B; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:45:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from baptiste.telenet-ops.be (baptiste.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.51]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2FF6E0AE3 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:45:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TOMWIJ-GENTOO ([94.226.55.127]) by baptiste.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id Emlg1n0172khLEN01mlhsv; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 23:45:41 +0100 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 23:44:42 +0100 From: Tom Wijsman To: chead@chead.ca Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Message-ID: <20140116234442.27c361d1@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> In-Reply-To: <20140115232804.1c26beda@kruskal.home.chead.ca> References: <20140114223312.GA3337@laptop.home> <52D5BDAD.4030808@gentoo.org> <20140114231113.GA3393@laptop.home> <52D5DAB6.1000609@gentoo.org> <20140115020802.700b1568@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <52D5E03C.3010900@gentoo.org> <20140115022337.4336618d@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <52D5E60A.80600@gentoo.org> <20140115020934.GA3886@laptop.home> <52D5F0BF.3060305@gentoo.org> <20140115024604.GA3952@laptop.home> <20140115232804.1c26beda@kruskal.home.chead.ca> 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_/WqaMP_TnzwHT++f=AG8nn2Q"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: a63018d5-8e7f-4b4c-b89e-96ab5ee7b49e X-Archives-Hash: 28ecfec1fae337ead5d552dc8a070e39 --Sig_/WqaMP_TnzwHT++f=AG8nn2Q Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 23:28:04 -0800 Christopher Head wrote: > If I need or want a feature or bugfix which isn=E2=80=99t in the newer > version, I always have the choice to use ~. Yes. > If I don=E2=80=99t, why do I care if the package is a year old? I lose no= ne > of my time to use the old version, since it does all I want; This is under the assumption that the old version has no further implications, which is a false assumption; because the older a stable ebuild get, the higher the chance is that it becomes incompatible with its libraries and/or causes blockers. Even further, a security bug for an old version of a library it depends on could cause its removal. Regardless, it'll work fine for some time; and you can even pull it further by attempting to keep things around and not upgrade, but at a certain point it'll come costly to hold on to. I'm not saying it is a lot of your time, but it's a bit more than none of your time. This point becomes much more clear if you imagine using software from in the early Linux years, most of them would be incompatible with today. > I lose a > nonzero amount of time if I get a version which breaks things (even > if the only time I lose is the time it takes to downgrade), Depends on whether the stable version is as perfect as one thinks it is; an upgrade can go two ways, it improves or regresses. (Well, three ways as it can stay the same, but that wouldn't demonstrate the point) > so it=E2=80=99s in my best interest to use the stable versions of such > packages, even if they=E2=80=99re a month, a year, or three years old. Based on what you know, what you need and that you can resist change; yes, but this doesn't take into account what you don't know, you don't know you need and the improvements that change can bring. While it doesn't happen often, some people will say "if I knew this earlier, I would have already upgraded a long while ago"; either because the new version brings something good, or the old version has a regression they were not aware of yet or came due to incompatibility... --=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_/WqaMP_TnzwHT++f=AG8nn2Q Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJS2GDaAAoJEJWyH81tNOV9+OwIAIlmblDnjfawMWRs5yRoy1uP QszAaRpP7L0jEbCma6pZi2uVJlYX5G0q7zOJg0ijcOeI7tgAY4T5+r6iQShP5ol/ 0S/06o8rLdk9EaPXew5tPHiZkcWQuuE04OgDIklQJPYtyr5SP5Tdcrq0ebB01Nb1 zlrB0HySv53UqFZn70EOFTmVd9SdUV0wbqT5aKFsHtZys26KCGHqe9GtSEr497Qs lbg6ijUQAPFcEB58ukD4pwxxoEcavdwQxRtMvTaM8VS4g+V3DLe0cfRlonlw9np6 R0DhnMKkdoytigbsq7UbMgXjuLtKM5qRVDSF+3n0AwZwQEPYNzFN4CjEWptdxRY= =feK5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/WqaMP_TnzwHT++f=AG8nn2Q--