On 2017-07-12 00:26, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> Question is what's more a problem: Having an outdated stable >> package because nobody cared about stabilizing a new version (in >> most cases this will end with a rushed stabilization once a >> security bug was fixed in the package) or move a package in time >> from ~ARCH to ARCH and deal with the fallout sometimes. > Easy, keep the working package any time Seconded.
That said, let me repeat something I mentioned during the last discussion about stabilisation procedures: for me at least the problem with stabilisation has never really been with version upgrades, it's with packages which do not even have a single stable version. For reference, as of right now my "version bump" keyword file lists 8 atoms (half of them referring to GIMP-2.9, which should not be stabilised anyway) - whereas my "not in stable" file lists 61. -- MS
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
