Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: today's merges

[Andrew Suffield]

On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 01:17:36AM -0700, Robert Anderson wrote:
> > > Indeed! For our MICO project development no star-merge is simply
> > > show-stopper. Is really 1.1 so unstable or buggy?
> > 
> > Not buggy, per se, just unstable in the classic sense of the word -
> > it's a target that moves _really_ fast. I don't have time to chase
> > it.
> 
> Then don't.  Just pick a good one, like 1.1pre5.

To do that, I would need either:

 a) a solid upstream committment to support it in the future - ie,
    fixing significant bugs that arise in it

or:

 b) enough time to backport the fixes myself

I don't have either right now.

I have to consider things like "If I have to pick one of these, which
would I rather be running for the next two years?".

> > You're better off running from the daily builds if you need that
> > sort of stuff.
> 
> Sure, but most people don't do that, so they're left wondering how arch
> solves the "repeated merge problem" like it advertises.

I think you'll find the set of users who want to solve this problem is
fairly small.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

pgpwXT1fuVh74.pgp
Description: PGP signature