| 1 |
Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 23:06 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>>Okay, new suggestion. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>>Postpone the cache rewrite from above. Have only the minimal mods necessary to |
| 8 |
>>fix the PORT_LOGDIR/tee bug. Include the other two as is. That would be |
| 9 |
>>2.0.54 as per the attached patch. Get that out soon and get trunk out masked |
| 10 |
>>at around the same time. As soon as 2.0.54 goes stable put trunk into ~arch. |
| 11 |
>>However, instead of ~arch meaning "regression fixes only" we could just limit |
| 12 |
>>it to "minor changes only" (ie. no big refactorings, rewrites or similar high |
| 13 |
>>risk changes) until it is time to stable it. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I think it would be wise to reconsider the cache fixes. I know you have |
| 17 |
> been away from irc for a while now and have missed the daily events, |
| 18 |
> but most of the people we have interacted with are expecting the cache |
| 19 |
> updates in .54 (alot of people complaining about the hanging at 50%) |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> The code has been pretty well tested and seems safe on the surface. I |
| 22 |
> think ferringb's testing has shown that the cache updates use about 14M |
| 23 |
> of ram where the existing code (as of .52.x) uses about 80M of ram. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
But still, it's annoying to be stuck with only 2 tiers. Why not put a snapshot of trunk in the tree and package.mask it? Wouldn't that make everyone happy? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Zac |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives