| 1 |
* Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> schrieb: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> My suggestion, as I said to fosdem, is to freeze, or take a |
| 4 |
> snapshot if you like, of the current tree, stabilize what you |
| 5 |
> need to stabilize, test the whole tree ( at least compile wise ) |
| 6 |
> for a couple of weeks and then replace the existing stable tree. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
hmm, would it make sense to add a new masking for the testing |
| 9 |
tree, so users could decide which stability grade vs they wish ? |
| 10 |
or perhaps use overlays for that ? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
For example, I'd like to have the critical packages (everything |
| 13 |
that's needed to bootup and do basic remote maintenance) from |
| 14 |
the new frozen-stable tree, but other things should stay as |
| 15 |
they are. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
cu |
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 21 |
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/ |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
phone: +49 36207 519931 email: weigelt@×××××.de |
| 24 |
mobile: +49 151 27565287 icq: 210169427 skype: nekrad666 |
| 25 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 26 |
Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme |
| 27 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Archives