| 1 |
Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> Alec Warner schrieb: |
| 3 |
>> Why Branch at 2.1_pre9? |
| 4 |
>> Manifest2 is already in the tree and needs refinement. Branching at |
| 5 |
>> pre7 is also a canidate, but i would rather press for keeping manifest2 |
| 6 |
>> in the tree and fixing up it's code instead. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Why not pre10? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Because pre10 seems to introduce repoman problems that haven't been |
| 12 |
solved and I've like to break out the RC's soon. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Zmedico did a lot of things with usage of global variables, however I |
| 15 |
think that getting all that tested ( especially in scripts that we don't |
| 16 |
keep track of ) is detremental to getting portage stable. I agree that |
| 17 |
it's an important step; however it's just code cleanup. It is not |
| 18 |
necessary for 2.1. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I'm looking at the diff from pre9 and pre10, and I will backport any |
| 21 |
bugfixes if that makes everyone happy. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
>> TimeLine: If all goes well, we can do an rc sometime this week: |
| 24 |
>> May 3rd : RC1 |
| 25 |
>> May 6th : RC2 |
| 26 |
>> May 9th : RC3 |
| 27 |
>> May 12th : RC4 |
| 28 |
>> May 15th : RC5 |
| 29 |
>> May 18th : RC6 |
| 30 |
>> May 21st : RC7 |
| 31 |
>> May 24th : RC8 |
| 32 |
>> May 27th : RC9 ( if needed ) |
| 33 |
>> May 30th : RC10 ( if needed ) |
| 34 |
>> June 5th : ~arch sys-apps/portage-2.1 |
| 35 |
>> July 6th : sys-apps/portage-2.1 |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> What's the point of planning a dozen rc versions ahead of time? Make a |
| 38 |
> rc1, see how it goes and release another rc version only if necessary |
| 39 |
> (for bugfixes). Also I absolutely *hate* date based roadmaps, just make |
| 40 |
> it "stable 2.1 when no new rc has been made for n weeks". |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
>> Problems: We may miss the timeline and thats ok. Releng wants a |
| 43 |
>> working portage, not a bugging POS portage-2.1 that wasn't ready for |
| 44 |
>> release. This timeline is relatively tight and I think it's a nice goal |
| 45 |
>> to set, it's not imperative that we reach it. |
| 46 |
>> |
| 47 |
>> Comments, Questions, opinions? |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> Date based roadmaps suck. They add a lot of pressure for no benefit |
| 50 |
> (other than a rough target date, and for that you don't need a roadmap). |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> Marius |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
The intent here isn't to present a strict date roadmap. The intent is |
| 55 |
to have portage-2.1 stable for the 2006.1 release. That means we need |
| 56 |
to start soon, and we need to get going on the release canidates so that |
| 57 |
we can meet the goal. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
-Alec |
| 60 |
-- |
| 61 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives