| 1 |
On 11/28/06, Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> As I have said, I've mentioned several times the idea of doing a |
| 3 |
> "release tree" to go along with each release. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
The release tree is not the basis for this. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
a) Releases (and the releng work that goes into it) are exclusively |
| 8 |
desktop-oriented. |
| 9 |
b) Release trees have a nasty habit of picking up last minute changes |
| 10 |
(such as gcc 4.1) to suit the release, not stability. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> No version changes on any packages, except those which are necessary due |
| 13 |
> to a security violation, or a vulnerable package's dependencies. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Tying a minimal-b0rkage tree to the arbitrary schedule of our releases |
| 16 |
does not serve all of our users. We are back to the same arguments we |
| 17 |
had when I said that the Seeds project would have to have its own |
| 18 |
independent release schedules :( |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
There¶ little merit in us creating mostly stagnant trees. Other Linux |
| 21 |
distros are already very good at doing that - far better than we will |
| 22 |
be at it - because they have advantages such as a paid workforce and |
| 23 |
more upstream developers on their books. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
A minimal-b0rkage tree needs to move to reflect the packages that we |
| 26 |
believe our users should be using for a stable environment. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Best regards, |
| 29 |
Stu |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives