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 7A768139694 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 12:45:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B5B651FC111; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 12:45:41 +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 6C5DE1FC107 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 12:45:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.18.16.88] (unknown [81.89.200.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: marecki) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 16F823419BF for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 12:45:39 +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: Marek Szuba Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:45:37 +0159.55 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: <1931696.H1tAJ0QB7a@porto> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Bcr6b6ejJJXQVlh5DtPx6bwKPJx5H6CJq" X-Archives-Salt: 922ea542-09d9-4e96-b295-51c185658462 X-Archives-Hash: 0371901dc55d02979985d0843add89bc This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --Bcr6b6ejJJXQVlh5DtPx6bwKPJx5H6CJq Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Nqv21jE2XR9J3Mahpd5hipelMwbNJKbDf"; protected-headers="v1" From: Marek Szuba To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: 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: <1931696.H1tAJ0QB7a@porto> --Nqv21jE2XR9J3Mahpd5hipelMwbNJKbDf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2017-07-28 12:43, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >> I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable)=20 >> 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. This. VERY much this. I do not care about having all the latest stuff on work machines, what I want them is to a) remain up to date security-wise, and b) actually survive updates. In fact, problems with the latter was what led us a couple of years ago to quickly conclude evaluation of a certain other rolling-upgrade operating system. --=20 MS --Nqv21jE2XR9J3Mahpd5hipelMwbNJKbDf-- --Bcr6b6ejJJXQVlh5DtPx6bwKPJx5H6CJq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE+rg74A3WvjZkJN1dfk6dqYdvnFkFAll7MesACgkQfk6dqYdv nFkDzxAAk24QmFNF1s7y7r66Wl0Ow4Q/L2cilHHsPXcwKG3t5OivZfcq6IPysTNG em7gBKmEhGerCOpc3jQH7SjavoXpqzpBA76gWxH3ZAx/pH+vG1emy4ohxdSZ8SKj RLitV53Uw72Mq2M1WNxH5fX7zdz+/1yO3JTLI251W5sXtz+tr9Q4cFOTwirzgfu4 5J7ZF1ak64TaN9ojbyUsDTor88JCZlv4A3IR7/iZ2yf/+D3bon3QbvU3oiS2dZUt TsKQ/Z8zRU8NEbY9j1Tw9TVL07Zx7857bT2T0kyn0Mfxvuk+Q0MScIFj4NdiD5qk ooNuYMjFDw7x3SUSSMdtYrv0o6GWR0IpRu7xLRzZOYEaj5mHmDVsCHSYQ3cCi6vU 5cmJLbLdK3ytHCD1AfthvaHoO0WT4XQzUguhlyvk4nmZCeekLDAPILwPTvW8mcU+ 2yckS5yEgJruaUsjK6MYwoVkCzt6CqKrJ3qY0CTbxxzlzXJLCWIm/fcTBx+TcjUm MCH2fbs1ZCligxBJJ4bSpHZOfX73T3lxX3IjhLh4/XmjNTXTkQIbBz4JBpqD+Db3 jfFUmSSyQI92dMaoBOBbp9BOUtnaL1Bf0nv1SO59K1aHpU3muLw8D8fng2jgq7yW bk3n8qQsta4OxOWX1s40xy1gNI1atQ+i3QTJc2QfOFiaxkXfjt4= =JHMv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Bcr6b6ejJJXQVlh5DtPx6bwKPJx5H6CJq--