https://do-not-ship.it/

>If you are a distribution that ship developer's unreleased patches, please reconsider this decision.



>Shipping unreviewed patches to your users is reckless. It unfairly exposes your users to potential issues, wastes time, and may give the patch's developer or active upstream project a bad reputation. It discourages developers from working on new features publicly, something we care about a lot in the Free and Open Source Software community. It also frustrates developers, and in some cases, causes developers to stop supporting a distribution altogether. In this scenario, the end user gets the worst of both worlds: a broken distribution and developers who are unwilling to help.

>Tag branch as LTS

>Tag branch as stable

>Tag branch as develop/experimental

So, what's the problem? People are pulling the branches used for active development and then complaining that they're not stable?

>>92894775 (OP)

>a free and open operating system for everyone!

Linux is experiencing the socialism downcurve and I am loving every second of it.

>>92894775 (OP)

>use flatpak

>don't patch any packages

>don't theme your desktop

So, Red Hat is butthurt that distros still exist.

Make a distro that automatically merges, compiles, and ships all merge requests. I do not care if they're drafts, WIP, or have been reviewed by the maintainers. Just merge everything.

>>92894775 (OP)

Can't distros just drop GNOME software?

This is literally what they want, stop using their software and they won't have to hate their users anymore because they'll have none.

>STOP. DISREGARDING. US!

That's called Arch

>pulling the branches used for active development and then complaining that they're not stable?

Ya that's the problem but there is no solution really . people are retarded and want to use the latest possible

this is your brain on updoots. so its a user problem yet again.

Arch ships stable releases. Not development branches.

>>92894775 (OP)

How the fuck are people going to find bugs in those patches if nobody uses them.

>>92894775 (OP)

>NOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST USE YOUR FREEDOM TO MODIFY FREE SOFTWARE REEEEEEEE

inb4

>This letter is not aimed at tinkerers playing with their own setup.

Free, as in freedom, software doesn't care if you're a tinkerer or a for-profit organization. You have freedom to modify and distribute as you wish.

In most countries, the end user can do whatever they want even with proprietary software anyways. This is an attempt to peer-pressure people into not distributing forks/patches - even though that is literally their right under GPL or MIT or BSD licenses.

Using GNU/Linux to build paid toilets is also allowed by the GPL, yet Stallman would push against it.

Just because it's allowed by the license doesn't mean it's free from pushback or criticism or even ethical.

>Just because it's allowed by the license doesn't mean it's free from pushback or criticism

which is *not* the argument the anon you replied to was making.

The website is just a small group of devs trying to peer-pressure other people to not use/redistribute certain patches. They want a kind of control which is fundamentally incompatible with the free software philosophy.

blame devops

>>92894775 (OP)

>signed

>mobile shit developers

lol

Even if it were a real problem just publish test branches to select groups

You can't ship it to everyone and then complain people are having trouble 

>it discourages developers from working on new features publicly

You work for free anyway nigger why do you care
