[arch-general] People that depend on Arch, etc deserve to die? - Allan McRae - Clarifications

[Jonathan Vasquez]

Let's not forget Loui, We are all human and make mistakes. A QA process is
definitely a good thing.

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri 23 Dec 2011 10:42 +0000, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> > On Friday 23 Dec 2011 05:32:25 Jonathan Vasquez wrote:
> > > I wanted to know what was he trying to say? Is he saying that Arch and
> > > other Arch-like distros aren't serious distros that aren't meant for
> > > production? I mean I understand that Arch is rolling release and all
> > > that, but it's packages are marked stable by their corresponding
> > > upstreams.
> >
> > I think the point is that it can be dangerous to use ArchLinux for
> > critical applications, because there are occasional breakages during
> > updates.  That's simply because Arch doesn't have a development cycle
> > including a QA phase.  Distributions such as Debian can make certain
> > guarantees about the stability of their software, because they only
> > use older and thoroughly-tested software by default.
>
> QA like when Debian broke SSL? I would rather trust Arch Linux for
> critical applications.
>
>


-- 
Jonathan Vasquez