On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Alec Warner <anta...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfri...@gentoo.org> > wrote: >> >> Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge: >> > >> > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. >> > >> > I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable) >> > carries with it an unneccessary cost. >> > >> >> That's not feasible. It would kill off any semi-professional or >> professional >> Gentoo use, where a minimum of stability is required. > > > So my argument (for years) has been that this is the right thing all along. > > If people want a stable Gentoo, fork it and maintain it downstream of the > rambunctious rolling distro. >
What is the difference between forking the repository, and just maintaining a keyword inside the same repository, besides the former being easier to integrate into QA/etc? People who are interested in working on stable already do so, and people who are not for the most part shouldn't be bothered by it. In the cases where stable has caused issues with maintainers the council has generally dropped arches from stable support so that repoman won't complain when packages are removed. I won't say that having stable costs us nothing, but I think the cost is pretty low. Asking people who want stable to leave isn't going to make things any better. -- Rich
