On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Smith Dhumbumroong <zodmaner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'd rather wait and let the devs sort out any/all problems with the new > version of perl, or any software for that matter, before releasing it, > rather than rushing to releasing it in order to "win" a nonexistent race. > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Allan McRae <allan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The goal of Arch Linux is not to package things faster than everybody else. > The goal of Arch is to make the distribution that the developers want to > use. It just happens that Arch developers like having most things packaged > quickly so that is what we do. > you know Allan... every time I hear what arch /is/ I hear something different. Arch /is/ a rolling distribution, it is not meant to be as stable as other distributions. This does not mean we release everything carelessly, and we generally have a good balance between 'stable' and 'current'. I'm generally not dissatisfied. My point by the way is that this could have been released to stable ~3 months ago. I really would like to not see Mandriva, Ubuntu, OpenSuse, and Fedora all have it in their stable distro's when we don't. As I've pointed out OpenSuse already has it in there stable 11.3. You can call me a wanker, and talk about your life all you want... but I volunteered to help, I know another that did too. We were turned down. I can't do what I don't have the 'privileges' to do, and neither can anyone else. There aren't any patches needed (so far as I can tell). The only thing left to do is rebuild community -dbd's and move everything to stable (so far as I can tell), if there's more no one has mentioned it. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.com
