| 1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 16:30 on Sunday 24 October 2010, Mike |
| 2 |
Edenfield did opine thusly: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 10/23/2010 5:03 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 02:50:26 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 6 |
> >>> You're mixing two different definitions of stable. Portage 2.2 is |
| 7 |
> >>> certainly reliable, but it is anything but stable with a new version |
| 8 |
> >>> coming out every day at the moment,. |
| 9 |
> >> |
| 10 |
> >> I'm waiting for tomorrow when my regularly scheduled portage update |
| 11 |
> >> hits _rc100. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > Well, it hasn't happened yet. A day without a portage update, a rare |
| 14 |
> > thing these days. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > Maybe someone decided that Gentoo is not Debian and 99 release candidates |
| 17 |
> > should be enough for a bunch of python scripts. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Looks like someone agrees with you: |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> [ebuild U ] sys-apps/portage-2.2.0_alpha1 [2.2_rc91] |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Although, perhaps I'm missing something but doesn't alpha |
| 24 |
> come *before* release candidate? :) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Yes, but: |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
2.2.0_alpha1 comes *after* 2.2_rc99 |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives