On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:15:47 -0400 Manolo Martínez <man...@austrohungaro.com> wrote: > On 07/20/12 at 02:56pm, Daniel Wallace wrote: > > All of those changes were discussed by the devs on arch-dev-public > > I, for one, thought that running archlinux responsibly only committed me > to subscribing to and reading arch-announce and -general. If I need to > read -dev-public too I will, but it'd be good to be explicit about this.
You don't have to read arch-dev-public if you just want to use Arch, but your original question was about the reasoning behind the move and that information is available in the mailing list archives. > > In my previous e-mail I also raised the point of having a roadmap for upgrades > that require user intervention. I'd like to know if that'd be > feasible; I think it would be useful. Likely not going to happen. Just update every few weeks rather than months and you'll have the same problems as everyone else (which will be described in the news posts) rather than more than one at a time, but even that isn't really that hard to resolve (see Allan's blog post[1] about upgrading from the super old core ISO) [1]: http://allanmcrae.com/2012/07/updating-arch-linux-from-a-core-install/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
