From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37D0A198005 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 02:36:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E4DBCE06C8; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 02:36:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67D73E06C8 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 02:36:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.210] (unknown [24.86.176.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: dolsen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CFA1E33DD78; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 02:36:09 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1361932548.3997.320.camel@big_daddy.dol-sen.ca> Subject: Re: [gentoo-catalyst] patch, fix broken seed stage update From: Brian Dolbec To: gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org Cc: zmedico@gentoo.org, fuzzyray@gentoo.org Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:35:48 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20130227014009.GC25035@odin.tremily.us> References: <20130226180428.GA22651@odin.tremily.us> <1361928640.3997.283.camel@big_daddy.dol-sen.ca> <20130227014009.GC25035@odin.tremily.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.3 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 333788d3-8e6d-4f74-afee-e393eabed10b X-Archives-Hash: 476161ae68eed51746b70b9e4241490f On Tue, 2013-02-26 at 20:40 -0500, W. Trevor King wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 05:30:40PM -0800, Brian Dolbec wrote: > > My aim for now is to debug the hell out of it, to stabilize all the > > existing changes, BEFORE doing a ton more changes. That will also give > > me more experience in how catalyst is used, possibly ideas how to change > > it for the better. I'll fix the doc's generation and make a setup.py > > and new 9999 ebuild. > > I'm not suggesting additional changes on top of yours, I'm suggesting > new ones underneath yours, or alternatives to your current series. It > seems a shame to spend time testing a work in progress, since you'll > probably want to re-test the final form before merging. I'm trying to > help polish your series down before we invest a lot of time testing. > NNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO :( not more rebasing I spent several days just tracking down and fixing rebase errors. Fix a few, that in turn caused more errors... You and I both know that the code is likely to be broken at times while doing many of the code changes needed to fix it. The original code was horrible, not all of it, but... The time for polish is later when the majority of the changes are done. I want to move forward, not churn in circles, rebasing, fixing conflicts, forever waiting for a commit to be reviewed & merged. One of the big reasons I started on catalyst was to remove the hardcoded paths everywhere that was preventing the tree migration away from /usr/portage. That has been largely accomplished, although not really tested. The reason I wanted to do more testing, is so far I've only done snapshot, stage1 thru 3. I've done the major restructure of the python layout. I want to get everything working, not 100% bug free, before moving on. That will make it easier to figure out where something got broken while doing the changes. Call it a midterm exam ;) to see where we stand. So I wouldn't mind working in a branch for now, somewhere we can all participate in pushing commits to in order to achieve our end goal. Then later when it's mostly done, we can look to moving it to master. Finish debugging and polishing it. > Cheers, > Trevor >