On 4 May 2016 at 16:46, Matt Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > Having built many stages for an "unstable" arch (mips) has taught me > one thing: it's awful being unstable-only. There's no end to the > compilation failures and other such headaches, none of which have > anything at all to do with the specific architecture. > > Short of adding a middle level ("stable, wink wink nudge nudge") where > things at least compile, I think the current situation is actually > significantly better than the alternative of dropping them to > unstable.
I feel like there needs to be something inbetween, a mechanism where things can be deemed "tentatively stable", where in they can still be later destabilized if evidence compels it. As it is, stabilization seems one-directional. If critical defects are found in "stable" releases, they tend not to escalate in the other direction. And I understand why that is, but it doesn't stop me wishing otherwise. But instead of adding a rung between stable and unstable ... maybe the right approach is to add a layer /beneath/ stable : "Long term stable". Where long-term stable is "Known to be good at a deep and thorough level by people who use the software regularly". Long-term stable at this point is not something I'd suggest people set as their keywords in general, but it would be a thing that would only be granted to specific packages on a case-by-case basis, and it would only be encouraged to be used in the sense of /etc/portage/package.keywords , where mixing long-term stable and stable would be "supported" ... somehow. IDK, there's still a lot wrong with my ideas, but hopefully there's some ball here to run with. -- Kent KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL
