On 21/02/2011 00:11, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> * Markos Chandras<hwoarang@g.o>  schrieb:
>
>> My suggestion, as I said to fosdem, is to freeze, or take a
>> snapshot if you like, of the current tree, stabilize what you
>> need to stabilize, test the whole tree ( at least compile wise )
>> for a couple of weeks and then replace the existing stable tree.
> hmm, would it make sense to add a new masking for the testing
> tree, so users could decide which stability grade vs they wish ?
> or perhaps use overlays for that ?
>
> For example, I'd like to have the critical packages (everything
> that's needed to bootup and do basic remote maintenance) from
> the new frozen-stable tree, but other things should stay as
> they are.
>

Perhaps this is an argument for a git based portage tree?  Master can 
stay as the current status quo and anyone who wants to can maintain a 
branch or fork which points to a slightly different subset of the tree?

I doubt we actually have the capacity to make this work, but it would at 
least in theory be cool to have a (weekly/monthly) branch which gets 
cut, run through a tinderbox in various forms and then pushed?  Or if 
someone wants to maintain a redhat style antique set of packages where 
the tree is largely held back to 2005 state with only bug fixes and 
essential packages bumped?

Just thinking...

Ed W