On 22/11/15 05:51, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 07:01:21 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:12 AM, Alexander Berntsen <berna...@gentoo.org> >> wrote: >>> When I do QA in projects I'm involved with (at least outside of >>> Gentoo), we don't do it live on end-user systems. I'll leave the >>> details as an exercise for the Gentoo developer. >>> >> >> People who run ~arch are not really end-users - they're contributors >> who have volunteered to test packages. > > I strongly disagree with you. We do not use stable even at > enterprise grade production systems and HPC setups. Stable is just > too freaking old in order to be usable for our purposes, not to > mention that it lacks many packages at all. We tried stable > several times, it just freaks out admins (including myself) too > badly or results in horrible mess of stable and unstable which is > less stable that unstable setups. I do not use stable at > workstations and personal setups as well. > > Nevertheless I consider stable useful as stabilization process > gives more testing for packages (and some fixes are forward ported > to unstable versions). Of course I understand that there are people > using it and I try to support stable packages as well, but these > versions are mostly a burden and I can't really understand stable > users.
Is the state of stable really that bad? I see this sentiment a lot. I run mostly-stable systems and rarely have an issue with old/missing packages (but I'm involved in the maintenance of many of the packages I use so I try to keep on top of stable requests). Are there particular areas that are lagging particularly, or is it just in general?
