| 1 |
Kurt, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I'd definitely prefer the latter (stable branch) option. NO question. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Here are my reasons: |
| 6 |
* I really appreciate the non-release updating of workstations, laptops, and packages. I find the current QA reasonable for those purposes and would prefer a stable branch for servers over a somewhat slower but more reliable main branch. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
* I could then build two servers 3 weeks apart, or even 3 months |
| 9 |
and be assured of having the same e-builds on both. |
| 10 |
* I could choose to remain current or build a known stable box. |
| 11 |
* A stable tree would provide a better corporate image, easier |
| 12 |
to sell to my conservative mgmt. |
| 13 |
* Even on my stable boxes, I could remain up-to-date on bug-fix |
| 14 |
and security patches. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I agree with Jo that certain versions of well-used packages should |
| 17 |
remain available long after the new versions are released. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Matthew C. Miller |
| 20 |
Systems Administrator |
| 21 |
Intermountain Technology Group |
| 22 |
208/381.5838 |
| 23 |
mmiller@××××.com |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> -----Original Message----- |
| 26 |
> From: Kurt Lieber [mailto:klieber@g.o] |
| 27 |
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 1:37 PM |
| 28 |
> To: gentoo-server@l.g.o |
| 29 |
> Subject: [gentoo-server] QA or an unchanging portage tree? |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> All -- |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> I'd like to poll the group to get your input on a question |
| 35 |
> that has come up |
| 36 |
> recently. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> There are a number of areas where Gentoo Linux could stand |
| 39 |
> improvement -- |
| 40 |
> we all know this. Two examples being discussed now are a) |
| 41 |
> improved QA for |
| 42 |
> the portage tree and b) the fact that the portage tree is |
| 43 |
> very fluid and |
| 44 |
> dynamic, which makes it more difficult to use in enterprise |
| 45 |
> environments. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> If you were given the choice between: |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> 1) A more robust QA process for the main portage tree or |
| 50 |
> 2) A seperate 'server' portage tree that offered: |
| 51 |
> * only updated quarterly |
| 52 |
> * security and major bug-fixes off-cycle, but no other |
| 53 |
> changes to the |
| 54 |
> tree |
| 55 |
> * guaranteed minimum life of all ebuilds in the tree |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> Which would you find more valuable and why? |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
> --kurt |
| 60 |
> |
Archives