Archives
Archives
| From: | Kurt Lieber <klieber@g.o> |
|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-server@l.g.o |
| Subject: | [gentoo-server] QA or an unchanging portage tree? |
| Date: | Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:37:13 |
| Message-Id: | 20040203203658.GB32533@mail.lieber.org |
| 1 | All -- |
| 2 | |
| 3 | I'd like to poll the group to get your input on a question that has come up |
| 4 | recently. |
| 5 | |
| 6 | There are a number of areas where Gentoo Linux could stand improvement -- |
| 7 | we all know this. Two examples being discussed now are a) improved QA for |
| 8 | the portage tree and b) the fact that the portage tree is very fluid and |
| 9 | dynamic, which makes it more difficult to use in enterprise environments. |
| 10 | |
| 11 | If you were given the choice between: |
| 12 | |
| 13 | 1) A more robust QA process for the main portage tree or |
| 14 | 2) A seperate 'server' portage tree that offered: |
| 15 | * only updated quarterly |
| 16 | * security and major bug-fixes off-cycle, but no other changes to the |
| 17 | tree |
| 18 | * guaranteed minimum life of all ebuilds in the tree |
| 19 | |
| 20 | Which would you find more valuable and why? |
| 21 | |
| 22 | --kurt |