* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
@ 2014-01-26 0:59 99% ` Rich Freeman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Rich Freeman @ 2014-01-26 0:59 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> I've often wondered just how much faster gentoo could move, and how much
> better we could keep up with upstream, if we weren't so focused on 30+day
> outdated stab?l3 bumping all the time. All that effort... from my
> viewpoint going to waste on something that gentoo really isn't going to
> be that great at anyway, certainly in comparison to other distros which
> REALLY provide a stab?le service, up to a /decade/ outdated, supporting
> often trailing edge software, in an effort to slow down progress for
> people that don't want to move so fast.
I get what you're saying, and I'm going to use a bit of hyperbole so
don't take this too seriously, but couldn't you just as easily argue
that Gentoo could go much faster if we actually took advantage of the
fact that we DO have a stable tree, and stop being so careful about
not breaking the testing tree?
Honestly, I think both trees represent a pretty decent balance. It is
pretty safe to run ~arch for the packages you really are interested
in, and run stable for the stuff that you don't care so much about,
thus limiting your exposure to problems while getting cutting-edge
where you care for it.
Most of the concern in this thread has been about some minor archs
that struggle to keep up. It seems like the simplest solution in
these cases is to just have them focus on @system packages for the
stable tree, and let users deal with more breakage outside of that set
(where it isn't super-disruptive). If you're running a minor arch
chances are that you're happy to have any support at all, since you
sure aren't going to be running Ubuntu...
Rich
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2014-01-15 1:36 [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Michael Orlitzky
2014-01-15 2:09 ` William Hubbs
2014-01-15 2:21 ` Michael Orlitzky
2014-01-15 2:46 ` William Hubbs
2014-01-16 7:28 ` Christopher Head
2014-01-16 22:44 ` Tom Wijsman
2014-01-19 22:31 ` Christopher Head
2014-01-20 0:47 ` Tom Wijsman
2014-01-23 18:12 ` [gentoo-dev] " Steven J. Long
2014-01-23 19:13 ` Tom Wijsman
2014-01-24 10:46 ` Steven J. Long
2014-01-24 18:26 ` Tom Wijsman
2014-01-25 4:02 ` Duncan
2014-01-26 0:59 99% ` Rich Freeman
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox