Re: [gentoo-server] Question about Gentoo-Server Portage Tree

[Andrew Gaffney]

Stewart Honsberger wrote:
> Eric Sammer wrote:
>
>> The "stable" or "frozen" tree effort was not exactly abandoned so much
>> as placed on a back burner to under go further research. There were
>> some concerns from some of the devs as to how much additional work
>> would be placed on them and their archs (some of the non-x86 archs
>> have few developers and certainly don't need extra work piled on).
>> Overall, there were a number of issues that needed to be worked out
>> prior to any kind of attempt at starting such a project (officially).
>>
>> The original GLEP by Kurt Lieber remains up for review at
>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0019.html for those who are
>> interested.
>
>
> I came up with an idea while driving some time last week, so naturally I
> forgot to write it down next time I pulled over. :P
>
> What if, instead of a stable tree, we introduce a new KEYWORDS modifier?
> Currently we have -arch, ~arch, and plain 'ol arch. What if we added
> "+arch" to mean "Tested stable for production deployment." and impose a
> set of guidelines regarding how long such an ebuild should remain
> available / in the tree. Server systems could continue using the "main"
> tree and set ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to +arch to only receive the most tested
> stable applications.
>
> No tree duplication, multiple CVS ./ rsync respositories, and such a
> small change I'd bet it could be implemeneted in minutes / hours rather
> than days / weeks.

This idea was long debated over when this issue was originally brought up 6 or so months 
back. I can't remember what came of it, though.

-- 
Andrew Gaffney
Network Administrator
Skyline Aeronautics, LLC.
636-357-1548