On 01/14/2014 08:23 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:11:24 -0500
> Michael Orlitzky <m...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> On 01/14/2014 08:08 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> If I don't realize it, it ain't broke.
>
> So, you're going to wait for corruption, a security breach or something
> along those lines to happen first?
I will wait for them to be *known*.
Security stabilizations are already treated special, so while they'd
make a nice example here you don't get to invoke them =)
It's highly unlikely that one day a stable piece of software is just
going to start corrupting data randomly when some other stable package
is updated. Why? Because arch testers have to test them before they go
stable! It's even more unlikely that upgrading to untested stuff would
be safer than staying put, which is really all I care about given a
choice between the two.
For really bad cases like data corruption we already have procedures
that allow quick stabilization ("reasonable amount of time..."). All
we're really talking about here is forcing me to upgrade to an unstable
package for some features or bugfixes I don't care about.
