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 9AFEB138A1F for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:19:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 44B53E0C08; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:19:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from baptiste.telenet-ops.be (baptiste.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.51]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38EC3E0BD1 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:19:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TOMWIJ-GENTOO ([94.226.55.127]) by baptiste.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id KRKH1n00c2khLEN01RKHx3; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:19:17 +0100 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:18:06 +0100 From: Tom Wijsman To: alan.mckinnon@gmail.com Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Message-ID: <20140128141806.0539be59@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> In-Reply-To: <52E7A82B.7070105@gmail.com> References: <52D5F0BF.3060305@gentoo.org> <20140115024604.GA3952@laptop.home> <20140115232804.1c26beda@kruskal.home.chead.ca> <20140116234442.27c361d1@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140119143157.72fc0e91@kruskal.home.chead.ca> <20140120014713.2cafc257@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140123181242.GA17827@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20140123201333.71e52bfc@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140124104605.GA19957@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20140124192641.5677cc51@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140128123740.GA1708@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <52E7A82B.7070105@gmail.com> 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_/zzKcMtHTpv9LFJLE3Ckbv+J"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: c96406b2-d9ab-4f92-b6bd-f70445514b21 X-Archives-Hash: c0dfaaa33fb35cfb26a547d2f6013c0b --Sig_/zzKcMtHTpv9LFJLE3Ckbv+J Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:52:59 +0200 Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 28/01/2014 14:37, Steven J. Long wrote: > > I concur that "QA should be focusing on making stable, actually > > stable, not more bleeding edge." That's not a "performance" issue > > as you put it, except in management nuspeek. It's the whole bloody > > point of the distro, in overarching terms: to test and stabilise > > robust ebuilds. That process is what leads to better software, not > > staying at the "bleeding-edge" and forgetting about robustness > > since "a new version is out." >=20 > +1 >=20 > Nice to see a dev echo my sentiments almost word for word exactly. >=20 > 9 years later I'm still here, still running Gentoo on all my hosts > (over 10 at last count excluding VMs). Why? Because Gentoo > just.works.right.every.single.time, even on ~arch - and that is an > amazing accomplishment for an distro never mind a USE based one. >=20 > If I want bleeding edge I'll use funtoo or exherbo or unmask > everything -9999. If I want the latest new! improved! shiny! crap > re-implemented yet again and badly, there's Ubuntu or nightlies from > rawhide. Bleeding edge in this context is ~arch, this is a contradiction. > The joy of Gentoo is that it works on just about anything. Stable > well-tested code continues to just work for the most part even on > slacker arches even if the ebuild is years old. When stable is just a > bit too stable for a specific case, we have overlays and > /usr/local/portage/cat/pkg. Do you mean unstable? > This is why Gentoo works so well, because the weird arches still get > to play on the same playground with the other kids. I work at a > carrier ISP and you'd be pleasantly surprised to see just how many > gentoo-powered vendor POC blackboxes come through the office from > vendors wanting to sell their network magic. Business seems to have > cottoned onto the idea that gentoo let's you stop wasting time with > make and rather fire off emerge, doesn't matter what the silicon is. +1 but can you please consider to stay on the topic of this thread? > Slow arches is the price for supporting everything out there. But so > what? If slow_arch_X is stuck on some old version of an @system > package, who cares? The people whom process gets blocked do. > It's not like portage will pick it for an amd64 box. An old ebuild is > a file, it sits next to 178,477 files and does no harm, it only gets > used on hardware that needs it. It can harm in the long run, as shown in some of the other sub threads; generalizations like "does no harm" can very well fit as to what you perceive when you would try it out, but it doesn't exclude harm overall. --=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_/zzKcMtHTpv9LFJLE3Ckbv+J Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJS564OAAoJEJWyH81tNOV9W2gH/jm03yX1esZ7elg1SQHpKzqR MbxThfEIkMmPAl6StgSUpWIUXEYZNPPbvfqherOc3XoFo4VVCh/4pYaf9yr7qKRM 90ILFGn9SPHRwObJqNmj+1lTXQBak8trF0b+DH1bxDt7y2y4FsDPJCKTIUTLWHdH t5GozlCkUPmSHMe8pqavYgsm3c8Et5PKy/17BFiytAsjJ6LJJk0z+GyyNjleZAx6 yubieYYKDfQURLMYhlEHYn1xiXOk0wOAfkenul+5q31EdU997H9Bv3Hnu7Ob8LGq 1i/pTr5hmhM01+6Mp4DhxnFezF/CCDyQvsmPfrQZ6YnAV8lJHKH/e2lFUU4ZLIo= =P5L8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/zzKcMtHTpv9LFJLE3Ckbv+J--