On 08/04/2016 06:24 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > I feel that our stable tree is so far behind on all > architectures that we are doing our stable users a disservice, so I > would like to open up a discussion here, and maybe some policy changes > at the next meeting. Far behind isn't necessarily a problem as long as it doesn't have bugs, in particular security related ones. Updating too often (without a good reason) can also be annoying enough. > > Ultimately, I think we need some form of automated stabilization, e.g. > if a package version sits in ~ for 30 days and there are no blockers at > that point, the new version should go automatically to stable on all > architectures where there is a previous stable version. I LOUDLY disagree. The stable tree should not be compromised by such automation, it is already bad enough without proper use-testing in some cases. Stable isn't only about building properly. -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP certificate reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3