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 1DFA7139694 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 19:44:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BBACDE0E85; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 19:44:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oi0-x241.google.com (mail-oi0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::241]) (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 65504E0E67 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 19:44:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-x241.google.com with SMTP id j194so13320738oib.4 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 12:44:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=scriptkitty-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=UV3qmuImb3B7FmVu51yDaVC1Jrn27HTQ+McdkpAeSZM=; b=bqqZSAkjPMRbqfYfac76+0cHKymK9UON/44zvsMjmwIbcjvkoyEWxqqs2riC+mXzvi K5wx0aS3CcqrtuVndGYz4LyZbffdSNYJJELbfUblKBxUVVzpVeRvwXRSkHGDjFrUAYyl m2FA1xD+ozWoX6KmlXZVBiPlibNeqejfM/+nlOzHzx+N86jreE5Qcn2vRc2Oehpou61t pRhqNSVB393TkyjbEm+nxcWS7H2drTQ9ltcKbxFKXuYb3d+qgDXaxfwE5wwhxrZz1liU NTQGZiXYbsoxlqA7wtsuAM7kVyiCeuSPo4ALbzzoqrSEtc3triUPjQuCeUvSM791uxzo iDSg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=UV3qmuImb3B7FmVu51yDaVC1Jrn27HTQ+McdkpAeSZM=; b=bwhq2pscvbrOdn4Gk24e4rjvvTAhvR82pqGE0jYPfNQFl4ehEhatjLzNyqLz9Kh+Rc DpHFgicB8JsgMUj/f1C2oiR9AKmSH46kDob7NzUzDrIix+p9HVsAvytUqsX2a3/8gA+g WRfCsQ99WbgaiFEtKNKcitsK7sN8tfs3mOfKO/4fetRlGcX9pAoBG+eCjlaQG5GDIRPG CF789mpPwfHiTft+91v4FApvECE28pLgvAbkXjnC4lFcGBIboTkBKv8aJekt5jBOhvg4 hX0cS4YDAACFHfPgpCsP/+ZBOl5RBoC3wJ7ymVFjYkjqVJMD0vgGprIZ3sLQhW69WUmK fE2Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw113HT9uOdooke3GoX5XfZwtvDJHj6U1SG2oLP6RvkFUzC0TjwNpv 1PTYtZtDQLExm7mZxKMg9EHHogOVbOXk X-Received: by 10.202.187.194 with SMTP id l185mr546024oif.228.1501271057191; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 12:44:17 -0700 (PDT) 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 Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com Received: by 10.182.32.68 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 12:44:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [2620:15c:2c1:100:1941:d62c:846:eac5] In-Reply-To: <1931696.H1tAJ0QB7a@porto> References: <20170724222223.6d359e47@sf> <20170724232244.GT12397@stuge.se> <1931696.H1tAJ0QB7a@porto> From: Alec Warner Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 12:44:16 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7-WhgXn7XObRfB0l3-2For7YKXc Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts? To: Gentoo Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113cf1f6136e19055565e88c" X-Archives-Salt: 1097bbb9-898d-4b97-b08c-7f37590ca7b1 X-Archives-Hash: ece47abda9b40765d937ab4efe4020ea --001a113cf1f6136e19055565e88c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge: > > > > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. > > > > I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable) > > carries with it an unneccessary cost. > > > > That's not feasible. It would kill off any semi-professional or > professional > Gentoo use, where a minimum of stability is required. > So my argument (for years) has been that this is the right thing all along. If people want a stable Gentoo, fork it and maintain it downstream of the rambunctious rolling distro. > > (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.) > > -- > Andreas K. H=C3=BCttel > dilfridge@gentoo.org > Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice) --001a113cf1f6136e19055565e88c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Andreas K. Huettel &= lt;dilfridge@gent= oo.org> wrote:
Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge:
>
> I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. >
> I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable)
> carries with it an unneccessary cost.
>

That's not feasible. It would kill off any semi-professional or = professional
Gentoo use, where a minimum of stability is required.
=
So my argument (for years) has been that this is the right t= hing all along.

If people want a stable Gentoo, fo= rk it and maintain it downstream of the rambunctious rolling distro.=C2=A0<= /div>
=C2=A0

(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 talkin= g about
100 or 1000 machines.)

--
Andreas K. H=C3=BCttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice)

--001a113cf1f6136e19055565e88c--