| 1 |
I think option #2 is the best to be first implemeneted. In addition to |
| 2 |
this, perhaps some mechanism to see the major changes in packages, helping |
| 3 |
to prevent potential issues, would be prudent. I'm also a big fan of the 1 |
| 4 |
year security patches option that had been mentioned earlier. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
---------------------------------- |
| 7 |
Kirk Smith |
| 8 |
Systems Administrator |
| 9 |
the Illiji network |
| 10 |
http://www.illiji.net/ |
| 11 |
---------------------------------- |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> All -- |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I'd like to poll the group to get your input on a question that has come |
| 16 |
> up |
| 17 |
> recently. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> There are a number of areas where Gentoo Linux could stand improvement -- |
| 20 |
> we all know this. Two examples being discussed now are a) improved QA for |
| 21 |
> the portage tree and b) the fact that the portage tree is very fluid and |
| 22 |
> dynamic, which makes it more difficult to use in enterprise environments. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> If you were given the choice between: |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> 1) A more robust QA process for the main portage tree or |
| 27 |
> 2) A seperate 'server' portage tree that offered: |
| 28 |
> * only updated quarterly |
| 29 |
> * security and major bug-fixes off-cycle, but no other changes to the |
| 30 |
> tree |
| 31 |
> * guaranteed minimum life of all ebuilds in the tree |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Which would you find more valuable and why? |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> --kurt |
Archives