Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-portage-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-portage-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-portage-dev@g.o
From: Simon Stelling <blubb@g.o>
Subject: Re: Stablizing portage 2.1
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 09:01:22 +0200
Zac Medico wrote:
> Well, it's been the tree for 2 days now we'll surely get bug reports
> as soon as people run into these hypothetical issues (though I
> expect very few, if any regressions).  I think the globals cleanup
> is worth having in 2.1 because it makes the code more maintainable.

Ack.

>  If you want to move back to a more stable revision, I'd suggest
> 2.1_pre7 (before manifest2).  I believe manifest2 introduced more
> potential for regressions than the globals cleanup did.

I think we should really include Manifest2 in 2.1. So my personal favourite is 
pre10. I don't think Zac's cleanup will introduce many bugs, and if there are 
any, it should be pretty easy to fix them.

-- 
Kind Regards,

Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Developer
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list


References:
Stablizing portage 2.1
-- Alec Warner
Re: Stablizing portage 2.1
-- Marius Mauch
Re: Stablizing portage 2.1
-- Alec Warner
Re: Stablizing portage 2.1
-- Zac Medico
Re: Stablizing portage 2.1
-- Alec Warner
Re: Stablizing portage 2.1
-- Zac Medico
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-portage-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Stablizing portage 2.1
Next by thread:
feature freeze for 2.1
Previous by date:
Re: Stablizing portage 2.1
Next by date:
Re: Re: Refactoring of emerge code


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-portage-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.