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

[Jonathan Vasquez]

Yup it is QA for Arch's model which is what I was going to yell you when I
started reading your response ;).

It depends how you implement QA.
On Dec 23, 2011 4:31 PM, "Heiko Baums" <lists at baums-on-web.de> wrote:

> Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:52:13 -0500
> schrieb Jonathan Vasquez <jvasquez1011 at gmail.com>:
>
> > Let's not forget Loui, We are all human and make mistakes. A QA
> > process is definitely a good thing.
>
> Is QA the thing what makes Debian so bleeding edge? *SCNR*
>
> I haven't had any stability issues with Arch Linux, yet, neither with
> Gentoo. And in these very rare cases in which something unforeseen
> happens with an update it can easily be fixed by either downgrading or
> waiting a few days for an update which fixes the issue. Or it can be
> fixed or worked around in other ways.
>
> So Arch Linux is absolutely stable and bleeding edge in my opinion and
> can indeed be used in a production environment.
>
> And, btw., isn't the testing done by the devs in the git tree and in
> [testing] not QA?
>
> Heiko
>