4 ms·

I prefer slower, working upgrades to quick 'n' dirty ones.

• pxc 4y ago
  I think both sides of the tradeoff can be valid choices, especially if the simpler implementation tends to fail in predictable, manageable ways. I think that's how most Arch users must feel, like > Upgrades via pacman rarely cause issues, and when they do I always know how to manage it because the design is simple and clearly documented enough that I can always understand what's going on. Partial upgrades don't make much sense for the kind of rolling release Arch is anyway. If that's someone's experience using Arch or whatever for $N years, then who would I be to say they haven't made the right choice for them? Personally, my preferences are similar to yours. My favorite package managers have never been the fastest or the simplest, but the most featureful and robust. But I'm trying to develop a deeper appreciation for the things that many legitimately love about the simplest and fastest ones as well.