From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22740139694 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2017 04:18:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EEDF0E0EBC; Sat, 29 Jul 2017 04:18:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90CB4E0EAE for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2017 04:18:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [46.246.44.81] (anon-44-81.vpn.ipredator.se [46.246.44.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zlg) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C1ECB341A57 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2017 04:18:25 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts? To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20170724222223.6d359e47@sf> <20170724232244.GT12397@stuge.se> <1931696.H1tAJ0QB7a@porto> From: Daniel Campbell Message-ID: <509ce16c-bd75-83f2-9c58-802c0b01ac77@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 21:18:06 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0 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 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Inwp0gR3QJJLJDNSXkMVKsrBdJ26Er6dU" X-Archives-Salt: a58e8e78-3653-4748-83a5-88bd5cead6bc X-Archives-Hash: 5fa467331bf0a597b43209b461b56d60 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --Inwp0gR3QJJLJDNSXkMVKsrBdJ26Er6dU Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="sJvInoTqMoVAHQ8kDUgEI5pCM7cKuIBlX"; protected-headers="v1" From: Daniel Campbell To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: <509ce16c-bd75-83f2-9c58-802c0b01ac77@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts? References: <20170724222223.6d359e47@sf> <20170724232244.GT12397@stuge.se> <1931696.H1tAJ0QB7a@porto> In-Reply-To: --sJvInoTqMoVAHQ8kDUgEI5pCM7cKuIBlX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 07/28/2017 12:44 PM, Alec Warner wrote: >=20 >=20 > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Andreas K. Huettel > > wrote: >=20 > Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge: > > > > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stab= le. > > > > I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable) > > carries with it an unneccessary cost. > > >=20 > That's not feasible. It would kill off any semi-professional or > professional > Gentoo use, where a minimum of stability is required. >=20 >=20 > So my argument (for years) has been that this is the right thing all al= ong. >=20 > If people want a stable Gentoo, fork it and maintain it downstream of > the rambunctious rolling distro.=20 > =20 >=20 >=20 > (Try keeping ~10 machines on stable running without automation. > That's already > quite some work. Now try the same with ~arch. Now imagine you're > talking about > 100 or 1000 machines.) >=20 > -- > Andreas K. H=C3=BCttel > dilfridge@gentoo.org > Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice) >=20 >=20 Why would we replicate that when Arch has been in that cavalier role for over a decade? Stability is important to all users; some simply have a lower tolerance for faults. It also gives us a reliable "product" for others to rely on or even dogfood. I personally run on ~arch, but if I were to put a friend on Gentoo, I'd want something that will be pretty easy-going until they learn the skills to take on ~arch, bug reports, etc= =2E For many -- especially developers -- stable is only a letter away from "stale", and that's fine. Some run mixed keywords, or go full ~arch. One of the core values of Gentoo is choice; why take away the stable choice? --=20 Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 --sJvInoTqMoVAHQ8kDUgEI5pCM7cKuIBlX-- --Inwp0gR3QJJLJDNSXkMVKsrBdJ26Er6dU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEgIn+0tMDW9PQWDLnASQOlFA54XAFAll8DIkACgkQASQOlFA5 4XBpHRAArNW281p0tBBJh+hSfnyAFXvk9sEhRyLEqNLNGjK+w/UNMGSc4hZGWv8k i+bMfMmlowRCqdjyKYSxIeuFxK39Fy9r8RBJ4Lw5FEThDK6d9w4qr0ekph9S54Jm PA3GygvVVIFxYm0JBKKyLC/JT5GXLo7p3cwOErpDcgx6ONPfSS7bC0Hl3nXgxEvi +yz5fqNoT+2L6zteJMdNxSEjgtWn19b/EvY+fWFwxRebabSB0lv4qusisPR+eF/8 yqk0dIA5MYaTkxvzK7ry7F84uQL7iEfHjGMbtNpHVDvCMdXrhdWU28BQG4hJo0IX NkMPFsbH0FSyU0z2QOx5HqWU0tTzKNSNIc/gCHgjqBR/rWfTsGAzgFvn3RqSswDY 8Wt1us2pLYMR0cTypYF9FgnEho2P+MHmEgGRN+RZsSAT/tdNGoOXJiVpSogpEFh5 Fwu/fk4vrcDJqJwGhtLzu28B5uXZRwj7MvGzgasen+x9mdThDv2ka7UuFwia74v8 s6YYpHmYGfTMK9lyA+zAgJP0uloE+uhZiezIcL75AYfZ6gIvBHwV4XByCzWgfnLD lDe83FIc9O0nWTttnQnAHLXOX5u0Lu1J6bKq1WIOu95zddChdCwKx9XYULtNUpAq QbHT8SFs5yBmcJB39ZIEft2OM7PhSJ2p1Cr+2qIitPPKYqYFsJY= =8xA9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Inwp0gR3QJJLJDNSXkMVKsrBdJ26Er6dU--