| 1 |
On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 13:13 -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Hi everyone, |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I think the current quality level of the 2.1 branch is good enough to make it a release candidate. From my perspective, it seems like a waste of everyone's time to roll a 2.0.55 release when 2.1 is a perfectly good replacement (with lots of bug fixes relative to 2.0.54). |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I know there are probably some additional features that people would like to get into 2.1 before we make this transition. Despite this, I think that it's in everyone's best interest to retire the the 2.0.x branch as soon as possible so that it doesn't waste people's time. This transition doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be "a long time" before some desired feature X is available in the stable version of portage. The next release after 2.1 (2.2 or whatever) doesn't necessarily have to be too far off in the future. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> So, I'd like to create 2.1 branch that is closed to mostly anything except regression fixes and release it as portage-2.1_rc1 this Saturday. We can continue to do ~arch releases of the development branch (2.2 or whatever it becomes) every 2 weeks. Does now seem like a good time for this transition? Your feedback would be appreciated. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
If this has been repeated elsewhere than sorry for the re-post. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
The resolver still needs a bit of work before it's ready. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Handling of the || () in ROOT!=/ via the -K option is not in that |
| 18 |
good of shape in 2.1_NXX and can't really be used. Till that's |
| 19 |
addressed 2.1(re-ping jason) in my eyes absolutely should |
| 20 |
not even be considered for any rc status. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Other than that I'm quite pleased with many aspects of 2.1 |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
| 27 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives