| 1 |
On 5/9/06, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> m h posted <e36b84ee0605082138t6be6ef5fk254a5f5e843b5f41@××××××××××.com>, |
| 3 |
> excerpted below, on Mon, 08 May 2006 21:38:49 -0700: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > hat is the status of my patches? I'm assumming that they are |
| 6 |
> > rejected... I'm curious the know the reason. If the plan is to |
| 7 |
> > migrate to a new improved version of portage (sooner rather than |
| 8 |
> > later), then maybe I'll try to help out Brian with his efforts. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I wouldn't assume that at this point. You just provided them what, a |
| 11 |
> couple days ago, right? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Yep, just a couple of days. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> On bug reports and the like, two weeks before a response isn't unusual. |
| 17 |
> You have a couple preliminary responses here already. I'd not even |
| 18 |
> /start/ to get antsy for two weeks, and wouldn't consider a "bump" request |
| 19 |
> for another week after that, anyway. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I guess my concern was that there was discussion of them being tested |
| 22 |
in IRC and I never heard any feedback from that. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
My other concern is that they will get lost in the ether. (Since new |
| 25 |
rcs seems to be coming out now). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Also note that trunk is frozen. Bug fixes only until 2.1 is split off to |
| 29 |
> stabilize. I'd not expect the patches to get in until trunk thaws again, |
| 30 |
> for 2.2 or whatever. That means there's no immediate hurry on dealing |
| 31 |
> with the patches, and that most of the focus ATM is on bugfixes for 2.1, |
| 32 |
> in ordered to get the -rcs out and then the release, and get it tested and |
| 33 |
> fully stabilized for 2006.1, now set for July, which given a 30 day |
| 34 |
> stabilization means we need to get thru the -rcs and to release preferably |
| 35 |
> by June first or so. I do /not/ expect your patches to get into 2.1. You |
| 36 |
> are at least a week to 10 days too late for that. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Fair enough, if the trunk is frozen, I wish that would have been |
| 39 |
indicated to me. No one has said that yet. The patches don't add any |
| 40 |
functionality per se, but could be seen as bug fixes for |
| 41 |
sloppy/extraneous code ;) |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Again, this isn't supposed to be taken in the wrong way. I'm coming |
| 44 |
from the point of view of a lurker of normal gentoo (and |
| 45 |
user/psuedo-dev of the prefix branch (which is based on 2.1)) I |
| 46 |
appreciate the clarification you've provided Duncan. Again, if 2.1 is |
| 47 |
just throw-away code, then perhaps code cleanup refactoring is a waste |
| 48 |
of effort, but I don't think it is.... |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
-matt |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
-- |
| 53 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives