Re: Assigning keyword/stable bugs to arch teams (WAS: [gentoo-dev] dropping redundant stable keywords)

[Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org>]

On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 10:18:32 -0500
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Many objected to removal since old with minor issues is better than
> new that doesn't work at all on some archs, or so the argument goes.

TL;DR: The opposite exists, I think we should draw a bar in the middle.

So goes the counter-argument; that an old version has some growing
issues (hidden security bugs get found, instability bugs are left
around, regressions are discovered, library dependencies get stabilized
but the package itself wasn't properly checked, ...) which are fixed in
a newer version, makes the new version better.

This could then allow one to rewrite the mail you wrote from the
complete opposite viewpoint; my point here is that, without rehashing
the discussion we had on this somewhere else in this long thread, that
the situation isn't as black on white as one would love to.

Making a claim "older [or newer] is most of the times better" requires a
quite a complex proof, but that shouldn't really be needed here. I agree
that your mention in another paragraph about "need to remove it"
definitely makes it more clear cut; although, that need can come
forward out of the presence of bugs and blocking stabilization requests.

The question here might rather be "how old is old?"; because if we're
talking about an old version of a year ago, that has quite a different
notion than an old version of several years ago. We can draw the bar
somewhere in between and we'll be fine...

-- 
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