Zhukov Pavel wrote: > > > On 11/7/07, *Colin Pitrat* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > > 2007/11/7, Jorge Leon <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>: > > On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:56:16 "Roman Kyrylych" wrote: > > > There were occasional talks about more conservative/stable > branch for > > > Arch, so this possibly may happen in future. > > > > I would love to see this happen. > > > > Jorge. > > The stable branch is the current+extra+community repository. For > tests, there is the testing repository. If more people were using > the testing repository, there would be less problems. Package don't > go from the testing repository to a stable one if there are still > bugs open on it. A morestablethanstable repository/branch wouldn't > help if noone use the other ones. If you want to help arch being > more stable, use the testing repository where you can. > > Colin > > _______________________________________________ > arch mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch > > > > Packages form extra/community doesn't require testing before upload now. > Packages in community even have no repo for testing, if someone upload > core/extra library package in 'testing' TUs aren't able to pre-upload > depending packages for community - when package uploaded to core/extra > it breaks all community packages that depends on it. > > Since some time ago arch becomes rarely unstable distros. Even a half > year ago i don't afraid of pacman -Syu, now i sure that it breaks > something. I'm already switched to Fedora on some machines to get > stability, if arch continues going this way, it will lost many users IMHO. > >
That's just how arch works. Things *may* occasionally break. You have to actively follow development. _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
