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 1911C139694 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 23:52:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BA62EE0D26; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 23:52:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw0-x231.google.com (mail-yw0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::231]) (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 71921E0D0B for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 23:52:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-x231.google.com with SMTP id i6so25272628ywb.1 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 16:52:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=gpM2h8CZe/JDBzYVYWKjrss/gYuC32dWRZIOV6WCVTY=; b=pSZ1FSzz2xC/6ALYhgwzKO22KKsGaVj7ud8oleaUEH9zn5ywY+LfFuHrkKig7Ps1ee 5eTvhIHVbirSa2CwUSMrv0VCk/eEacRVC5PSLImQ65QDQtvoyVTz62mibxL2QB/iXjSk Kli7u2twIFBFkFftlYOXIaQH5oSe5gKd7MPkP4IJzBDdALLdrjYRIKow4kjcaRSb4hoo vgcDD5yIOiNeXQVF/pakNbsmaBxMy2Gr13N91dffznZytAP5exxyXQxsngLbWGicJ4iQ /tvfYZeAk/B3iZrN6pTxavb25TrOswIZ6TUrZ6Isf9o8XBcNZ7ZABcnwp3uNUTzqkl13 Ll2Q== 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=gpM2h8CZe/JDBzYVYWKjrss/gYuC32dWRZIOV6WCVTY=; b=q7JylmDJzrRjNPhIC1n96vqJMXGbtzjDtf2rcqq2OocQmwQ3jt3X2eEtpwXumL6Klp n4fTGTKdQ5gmUQFEyEWzflPAJnt6ubfni+MNyOOKv39Yln9GfbfBZu4DaHjcaLBksbCU +jGKh5swa7N4Ybv8GE7xY4iaiKunY8fl0v2m1H2ALcpUMHVsPD76Qye2oYad2FXw5FuG pCYXg9SLnct9E+MDuPSNRMWmpSA/l/aS2ciXz3onXj8o23KjBVQpn00h2Ffe9P6oUOc0 jhDZyVMfWR54/OxtC1vkGrLD9f7KmY41PczIRKtAadh75JEiLBL8uEmc/6/bD0FRBC6P i7yQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111FYnTpm0o71OAgmmQONEu46qJ9BKngyt7if99AZ61qWntT39Fo m2G9KjtzBGaSd4diPugG9hz5cql+E6T0 X-Received: by 10.129.130.71 with SMTP id s68mr15259016ywf.176.1500940362017; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 16:52:42 -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: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.129.71.3 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 16:52:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20170724232244.GT12397@stuge.se> References: <20170724222223.6d359e47@sf> <20170724232244.GT12397@stuge.se> From: Rich Freeman Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:52:40 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: KkZD2nYXnaaz4CY2oZGgtOc1byg Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts? To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Archives-Salt: 2981339a-6481-4422-b80c-839fd2770216 X-Archives-Hash: 8923fd2243dcacff266d87e7d59743ef On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: > > 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. > The question is whether devs would start being more conservative with ~arch if it essentially turned into the new stable? If ~arch doesn't break then we're probably delaying updates too much. If it does start breaking and we don't have any alternative, we'll probably start losing users who just can't deal with their systems breaking. Personally I'd rather see stable stick around. If it isn't updated often that isn't a big deal (to me at least). -- Rich