On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 12:41 PM, "P. A. López-Valencia" <vorbote@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 17/12/14 11:28, Ido Rosen wrote: >> >> We seem to be in agreement: 2.1.x is not yet in the set of upstream >> *stable* releases, but 2.0.x is in that set. > > > Not really. You missed the "as close to current". I didn't miss the as close to current. You said "as close to current as *upstream stable releases* allow." 2.1.x is not an upstream stable release while 2.0.x is, therefore we are closer to current than upstream stable releases allow. So, as I said, we are in agreement, and IMO a mistake was made and should be rectified by a downgrade rather than leaving Arch users at risk of security breaches. >> Therefore, Arch should follow 2.0.x until upstream has marked 2.1.x as >> stable. Someone made a mistake in upgrading to 2.1, so let's correct the >> mistake by downgrading back until it's safe, rather than leaving all of >> Arch's users at great security risk. Let's not forget that gnupg underlies >> all of Arch's security/integrity (i.e. pacman db and pkg signing) - it's how >> our users know that Arch is Alice-rch and not Eve-rch. IMO, downgrading is >> the responsible, smart (not stupid) thing to do, and let's not forget the >> last "S" in K.I.S.S... :-) > > > The usual practice is to wait until there is a first point release that > catches the most glaring bugs, see for example how the kernel and the main > desktop environments are updated. The first point release was yesterday > (2014-12-16) and it is already in testing. This transition would have > occurred sooner or later because the benefits outweigh the cost of moving to > the newer version---e,g., the ability to use elliptical curve keys---, but > it would've been reasonable to wait for this first point release. > >> I donated, but I do not see your name on the donation list? [0] > > > Do not stoop to personal attacks. Thank you. > > Besides that, I never make public my acts of charity. Have you read Matthew > 6:3? Even good atheists practice it. It was not a personal attack. You encouraged me to donate, so I did, and was encouraging you to practice what you preach (i.e. to donate as well). I'm not Christian, but I think that's covered later on in Matthew 7:2...? Did you read the rest of that paragraph? You disregarded my points as a red herring, then made a straw man argument that we should donate instead of downgrading (and leave Arch users vulnerable). In the same paragraph, you quote Arch policy which agrees with the downgrade... I guess you are just trolling. Happy holidays, either way. :-) > > > -- > Pedro Alejandro López-Valencia > http://about.me/palopezv/ > > Every nation gets the government it deserves. -- Joseph de Maistre
