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

[Tom Gundersen]

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 10:30 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?

In an ideal world, the people whose livelihoods / lives depend on Arch
(if such people exist) would dedicate some resources to helping out
with testing stuff in [testing]. So while the QA done by [testing] is
quite limited, it could in principle be very good (depending on how
many people owe us their lives).

-t