On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 19:47:50 -0500 Michael Orlitzky <m...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 01/14/2014 06:11 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > >> > >> For users, both options are worse than the status quo. > > > > The first option would start reverting things back to ~ and users > > would have to unmask them. > > > > The second option would introduce new things to stable which may > > not be stable due to not being tested on the arch. > > > > The second option is worse than the first imo, that's why I didn't > > propose it first. > > > > The status quo is not good, because we are forced to keep old, and > > potentially buggy, versions of software around longer than > > necessary. > > So you're going to force stable users onto the unstable, untested > version, which they could have done anyway if they wanted to. Strictly > worse than the status quo (where it's optional). This is under the assumption that the user knows of the state of the stabilization worsening; if the user is unaware of that change, the "could have done anyway" might be less common and first something bad would need to happen before they realize the worsened stabilization. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
