On Mon, Jan 20, 2014, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Christopher Head wrote: > > If stable really is falling behind and the backlog is always growing, > > obviously something has to be done. I just don't want "something" to > > mean "don't have a stable tree". The stable tree provides me with a > > benefit. If standards have to slip a bit to maintain timeliness, then > > I'd prefer a stable tree that's as stable as practical, accepting > > reality-- perhaps where users are able to submit reports of working > > packages, or where we let platform-agnostic packages be stabilized > > after one arch has tested, or various of the other suggestions in this > > thread. Just not no stable tree at all. > > +1 as long as we can find effort and ways to keep it around.
What? Without a stable tree, Gentoo is useless afaic. I don't think that's what was being proposed, though. The question was really the old complaint about slow architectures; the "-* arch" solution sounds like the most reasonable definition of "dropping" keywords, in the absence of AT communication otherwise. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
