2016-06-18 20:52:41<@K_F> "all older versions"?
2016-06-18 20:53:24<@K_F> WilliamH: I only see 6.10.0 in that branch being
older
, and still some stabilization missing to remove that
2016-06-18 20:53:27<@slyfox> must be a 6.10.0 :)
2016-06-18 20:53:47<@WilliamH> K_F: by policy, the stabilization has taken too
l
ong.
2016-06-18 20:54:00<@WilliamH> K_F: see how long the bug has been opened.
2016-06-18 20:54:02<@K_F> WilliamH: ping remaining arches then
2016-06-18 20:54:10<@K_F> its only since feb, its not the worst case I've seen
2016-06-18 20:54:33<@K_F> WilliamH: still, that on its own is irrelevant, the
st
able user's expectation of behavior thrumps it
2016-06-18 20:54:47<@K_F> and 6.10.0 contains security vulnerability fixing,
so 
a user not upgrading to that is worse
2016-06-18 20:55:04<@WilliamH> K_F: tell the arch teams to to their jobs then
;-
)
2016-06-18 20:55:21<@WilliamH> s/to to/to do/
2016-06-18 20:55:24<@K_F> any significant important regression in that that
requ
ire upgrade to .1?
2016-06-18 20:57:28<@WilliamH> K_F: it is a base-system package.
2016-06-18 20:57:35<@K_F> irrelevant
2016-06-18 20:57:44<@WilliamH> K_F: why can't arch teams stabilize even
base-sys
tem packages in a timely manor?
2016-06-18 20:57:53<@K_F> is there any significant bug/regression that causes
issues for current users?
2016-06-18 20:59:25<@WilliamH> K_F: I don't know of anything specific, but
this is exactly the kind of thing that is extremely annoying as a maintainer.
2016-06-18 20:59:34<@K_F> why?
2016-06-18 20:59:53<@WilliamH> K_F: being forced to keep old versions of
packages around.
2016-06-18 21:00:13<@K_F> doesn't cost you that much to do so. 
2016-06-18 21:00:33<@kensington> WilliamH: build passes on x86
2016-06-18 21:01:38<@K_F> WilliamH: would be different if it was an old slot
and potentially requiring backporting of fixes etc, but I don't see any
overhead from having an older package in same slot that can be upgraded on
fast-track if security issues shows up
2016-06-18 21:02:19<@WilliamH> kensington: ok.
2016-06-18 21:02:41<@slyfox> kensington: does it get dhcp address? :)
2016-06-18 21:03:09<@WilliamH> K_F: maintaining a stable tree is a contract
between the maintainers and the arch teams.
2016-06-18 21:03:24<@K_F> WilliamH: and the users
2016-06-18 21:03:36<@WilliamH> K_F: if the arch teams can't keep up, imo,
maintainers shouldn't be forced to keep old packages around.
2016-06-18 21:03:41<@K_F> and if there isn't any good reason to upgrade for
the users, holding back on a stabilization can be a good thing in itself