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 7ECA2139694 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 21:56:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DFD511FC169; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 21:56:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail2.obsidian-studios.com (mail2.obsidian-studios.com [45.79.71.79]) (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 6E20D1FC15C for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 21:56:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 27174 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2017 21:56:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO assp2.obsidian-studios.com) (wlt-ml@::ffff:127.0.0.1) by ::ffff:127.0.0.1 with ESMTPA; 28 Jul 2017 21:56:31 -0000 X-Assp-Version: 2.5.5(17073) on assp2.obsidian-studios.com X-Assp-ID: assp2.obsidian-studios.com m1-78990-10106 X-Assp-Session: 3D481E02A10 (mail 1) X-Assp-Envelope-From: wlt-ml@o-sinc.com X-Assp-Intended-For: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Assp-Server-TLS: yes Received: from unknown ([fdbe:bad:a55:0:1::211] helo=localhost) by assp2.obsidian-studios.com with SMTPSA(TLSv1_2 ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256) (2.5.5); 28 Jul 2017 14:56:29 -0700 Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:56:25 -0400 From: "William L. Thomson Jr." To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <20170724222223.6d359e47@sf> Organization: Obsidian-Studios, Inc. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.0-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.31; 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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Sig_/0QhMnZfVE.Plk9zI7DxvQKO"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 538ce0a9-0c05-464d-aa94-c214c1037111 X-Archives-Hash: ca72884a4dcad3e82ce7cd6a951ebf41 --Sig_/0QhMnZfVE.Plk9zI7DxvQKO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 21:45:57 +0000 (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote: > William L. Thomson Jr. posted on Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:10:42 -0400 as > excerpted: >=20 > > It seems odd that upstream will release a package. Just for > > downstream to consider it not stable. Did it get messed up during > > packaging? Did it get messed up by the distro? The whole lag thing > > does not make sense for Gentoo. Sooner released and tested on > > Gentoo. Sooner bugs can be founded, reported back to upstream, etc. > > Speeds up development. That is Gentoo's role in FOSS IMHO. =20 >=20 > Not so odd. Gentoo's arch-stable has a different meaning than > upstream's stable. As a long time gentooer I'm surprised you weren't > aware of this already. If upstream does a new release, fixes bugs. Gentoo marks a previous release stable. It is stabilizing a package with issues fixed upstream. That does not make sense. Gentoo issues maybe good, but not upstreams. I maintained packages like iText which used to have a 30 day release cycle. Up till recently Jetty was about the same. As a end user, I needed the bug fixes. Not the delay for it be marked stable. I stopped running Redhat long ago due to time to vet updates. I run Gentoo for the speed of being able to package and test out new code. --=20 William L. Thomson Jr. --Sig_/0QhMnZfVE.Plk9zI7DxvQKO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EARECAB0WIQTEeldqZjmVut8bVHJNcbKkg6ozUAUCWXuzCQAKCRBNcbKkg6oz UABXAJ4uEIaaz4zRkaYTth4oTCs+eX7XLgCfbeWSlZqfB8yOBjCGs0nP0b4Wkkc= =kFlS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/0QhMnZfVE.Plk9zI7DxvQKO--