| 1 |
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 08:37 +0000, Stuart Herbert wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 11/28/06, Andrew Gaffney <agaffney@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > You make it sound like releng doesn't care at all about non-desktop packages. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> That wasn't how it was meant. Was simply meant as a statement of |
| 6 |
> fact. Releng activities are currently exclusively desktop-oriented. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I'm sorry, but how the hell do you know? You are not a member of |
| 9 |
Release Engineering, and have *NO CLUE* what we do over there. What we |
| 10 |
release isn't the only thing we do. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Until that changes, releng snapshots aren't fit for the purpose of |
| 13 |
> being a non-moving tree, as far as servers are concerned. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Luckily, I'm not asking you. Instead, I'm asking interested developers |
| 16 |
to assist us in making what we plan on doing much more viable. Feel |
| 17 |
free to sit over there and naysay until you're blue in the face. We'll |
| 18 |
be over here getting something accomplished via teamwork. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> > > b) Release trees have a nasty habit of picking up last minute changes |
| 21 |
> > > (such as gcc 4.1) to suit the release, not stability. |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > Gcc 4.1.1 wasn't a last minute change. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> I can't agree with you there. It doesn't matter how many months of |
| 26 |
> planning and work you guys put into getting gcc-4.1 fit for stable. |
| 27 |
> If you're doing it off in your own little corner of the world, and |
| 28 |
> then springing it on the rest of us just days before the release |
| 29 |
> happens, then to the much larger dev community, it comes as a last |
| 30 |
> minute change. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Except it was announced before we even made the snapshot, and we worked |
| 33 |
with the toolchain guys to get it to happen and entirely with their |
| 34 |
blessing. Just because we didn't take the time out to stop and make |
| 35 |
sure you were personally comfortable with the change doesn't mean we |
| 36 |
didn't prepare for it and announce it. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> If you're "testing the crap" out of something, but only in an |
| 39 |
> exclusively desktop-oriented way ... well, that can only really be |
| 40 |
> partial testing, can't it? |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Again, you don't know what you're talking about, so I'd really |
| 43 |
appreciate it if you just shut the hell up until you decide to get |
| 44 |
yourself informed on the facts. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
> There'll always be GLSA's to respond to. That's another issue that |
| 47 |
> needs to be handled w/ a slow-moving tree. Are you going to restrict |
| 48 |
> changes in the slow-moving tree only to changes against a GLSA? |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
That's what we've said. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> I honestly don't think you're ever going to get that out of Gentoo, |
| 53 |
> because of the lack of backporting. Can you live with a slower-moving |
| 54 |
> tree? Or do you personally really need a non-moving tree? |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> If you really need a non-moving tree, I think you're better off with |
| 57 |
> RHES or Ubuntu. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
While I truly appreciate your ability to give your opinion, I don't |
| 60 |
care. As I said, I am working on this concept as an experiment. It is |
| 61 |
being done by Release Engineering. We aren't really *asking* anyone for |
| 62 |
their opinion. We're simply stating what we plan on working on and will |
| 63 |
be asking people who *want* to participate to do so. Anyone not |
| 64 |
interested in participating in this Release Engineering-driven project |
| 65 |
is welcome to completely ignore us, as we will them. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
-- |
| 68 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 69 |
Release Engineering Strategic Lead |
| 70 |
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams |
| 71 |
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee |
| 72 |
Gentoo Foundation |
Archives