January 11, 2018 9:52 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 11/01/2018 08:43, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>
>> I always was under the impression the following order (and explanation)
>> was the case:
>>
>> stable -> development -> experimental
>>
>> For this reason, e.g. Prefix profiles are (still) ex
Dnia 11 stycznia 2018 08:43:32 CET, Fabian Groffen
napisał(a):
>On 07-01-2018 21:25:28 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
>> I'd like to follow this with a more precise proposal. Namely,
>redefine
>> the current profile statuses to apply the following:
>>
>> a. stable -> fully tested, all depgraph break
On 11/01/2018 08:43, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> I always was under the impression the following order (and explanation)
> was the case:
>
> stable -> development -> experimental
>
> For this reason, e.g. Prefix profiles are (still) experimental, which
> means they really shouldn't bother non-Prefix
On 07-01-2018 21:25:28 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> I'd like to follow this with a more precise proposal. Namely, redefine
> the current profile statuses to apply the following:
>
> a. stable -> fully tested, all depgraph breakages are errors,
>
> b. exp -> fully tested, all depgraph breakages ar
