Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:46:38 -0400 as excerpted:
An issue your suggestion doesn't address is when packages don't even
stick around 30 days/etc.
I know I've seen many packages where there is an ancient stable version
that is never touched, and a much newer ~arch version
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Talking about... Just today I was reading that the firefox folks are
debating shortening the current 6-week cycle to 5-weeks or less.
Upstream issues are a whole different kettle of fish, but obviously
still cause problems.
Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:10:27 -0400 as excerpted:
Plus at least with firefox the old versions don't suddenly stop
working/etc, assuming they still get upstream security notices.
That's the thing. AFAIK, they don't. FF4 is still getting them I
believe, due to longer term
On 12:10 Wed 21 Sep 2011, Rich Freeman wrote:
Maybe we need to rethink the definition of stable in these
situations. I think it still doesn't hurt to have some kind of QA
cycle internally for something like firefox. Plus at least with
firefox the old versions don't suddenly stop working/etc,
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Thomas Kahle to...@gentoo.org wrote:
I agree that these new 'channel' concepts are not very compatible with
out stable/testing tree model and security stabilizations. Every single
stabilization (except the first) of www-client/chromium for instance is
a
On 13:37 Wed 21 Sep 2011, Rich Freeman wrote:
I LIKE the contribution of linux distros, and I don't really want to
see a move towards the Windows world where I have 10 different
auto-updaters running (or worse - no auto-update and I'm just stuck
with manual checks). I also don't like every
