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

[Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1669 bytes --]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:31:57 -0800
Christopher Head <chead@chead.ca> wrote:

> Right, of course things can become incompatible—but the distro handles
> that by either leaving old enough version of e.g. libraries around
> that the latest stable versions of their reverse dependencies don’t
> break, or, in exceptional cases (e.g. security), by breaking things
> intentionally if necessary, thus telling me that there’s a problem.

True, note that upper limits on the dependencies (<cat/pkg-ver) or
similar blockers are not always in place; which can make this
problematic if the maintainer doesn't catch the incompatible regression,
especially since a lot of us run testing and don't look after older
or stable packages as much as we would want.

> If stable really is falling behind and the backlog is always growing,
> obviously something has to be done. I just don’t want “something” to
> mean “don’t have a stable tree”. The stable tree provides me with a
> benefit. If standards have to slip a bit to maintain timeliness, then
> I’d prefer a stable tree that’s as stable as practical, accepting
> reality—perhaps where users are able to submit reports of working
> packages, or where we let platform-agnostic packages be stabilized
> after one arch has tested, or various of the other suggestions in this
> thread. Just not no stable tree at all.

+1 as long as we can find effort and ways to keep it around.

-- 
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 --]