On 08/05/2016 01:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 6:22 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >> > On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 11:12:24PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Thank you for caring about this issue. I had similar thoughts >>> >> myself, but was too slow on writing e-mail :) IMO stable tree has >>> >> three problems: >>> >> 1) too old packages >>> >> 2) too few packages >>> >> 3) stabilization often takes too long, such stable packages are >>> >> broken or buggy, while their unstable versions are fixed and work >>> >> fine. (It is not possible to fix all bugs without version or >>> >> revision bump, thus stabilization is needed to fix many bugs.) >> > >> > "too few packages" doesn't really affect things much, I'm more >> > concerned about 1 and 3. If packages are not stable in the first place, >> > that is because the maintainer hasn't requested stabilization, and that >> > is a separate issue. > I'm less concerned with old (within reason) and few. I think the > primary criteria has to always be that the packages are reliable. If > somebody wants to make the tradeoff less reliability and fresher > packages they can just install testing. > +1 -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP certificate reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3