On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 09:03:31 -0500, Ido Rosen wrote: > Given that it's not marked as stable upstream, and that it's such a > critical core component of Arch's infrastructure, I find it > questionable for Arch to have upgraded so soon. Ido, thanks for the heads up :)! I considered Arch's "core" as something comparable to FreeBSD's "world". The "base system" should be apart of the Arch's philosophy to follow upstream, even if upstream releases something as stable that is well known as completely broken as e.g. ... ok, I resist ... ;). Everything in "core" has to be as stable and as proved as possible. 2 Cents, Ralf
