On 07/28/2017 12:44 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Andreas K. Huettel > <dilfri...@gentoo.org <mailto: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. > > > > (Try keeping ~10 machines on stable running without automation. > That's already > quite some work. Now try the same with ~arch. Now imagine you're > talking about > 100 or 1000 machines.) > > -- > Andreas K. Hüttel > dilfri...@gentoo.org <mailto:dilfri...@gentoo.org> > Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice) > > Why would we replicate that when Arch has been in that cavalier role for over a decade? Stability is important to all users; some simply have a lower tolerance for faults. It also gives us a reliable "product" for others to rely on or even dogfood. I personally run on ~arch, but if I were to put a friend on Gentoo, I'd want something that will be pretty easy-going until they learn the skills to take on ~arch, bug reports, etc.
For many -- especially developers -- stable is only a letter away from "stale", and that's fine. Some run mixed keywords, or go full ~arch. One of the core values of Gentoo is choice; why take away the stable choice? -- Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
