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 B9513138BF3 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 07:41:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 73DCCE0AA9; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 07:41:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from andre.telenet-ops.be (andre.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61CF8E0A90 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 07:41:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TOMWIJ-GENTOO ([94.226.55.127]) by andre.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id SvhW1n00K2khLEN01vhWrL; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 08:41:30 +0100 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 08:41:22 +0100 From: Tom Wijsman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: Assigning keyword/stable bugs to arch teams (WAS: [gentoo-dev] dropping redundant stable keywords) Message-ID: <20140216084122.3fece52c@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> In-Reply-To: References: <52E7DBC1.5020102@gentoo.org> <20140128182304.7d458a17@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140203062524.GA7467@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20140203104341.2add2760@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140204210319.GA1935@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20140205010833.1bcf8dca@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140213212818.GA2199@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20140214195958.5aea85f0@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140215012855.417f1caa@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140215114157.6abe3da5@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140215143021.231bab3f@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> 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: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 7ef3aa95-4e7a-4a12-a851-c25d931645fd X-Archives-Hash: c940be85ea26ac342812870d70535daa On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 10:18:32 -0500 Rich Freeman 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