| 1 |
Second try as a new thread: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 06/27/2011 05:58 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
| 5 |
> We use 2.0.6.916 on official releng releases. |
| 6 |
> I tried 9999 on my private tests because [..] |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
To me that leaves the question who uses 9999 for serious stuff at all. |
| 9 |
In case it's no one (which we should find out) we could trash that |
| 10 |
branch and fully concentrate on calalyst_2. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I guess that sounds a bit radical at first. It doesn't have to be a |
| 13 |
quick decision. Also, version control allows us to bring it back if needed. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Ideas on find out who is using 9999: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
- Removing 9999 ebuild from the tree and see who's complaining |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
- Resetting branch master to nothing but a README announcing |
| 20 |
the possible death of that thread and a request to join |
| 21 |
this mailing list and speak up about it if there is need. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
- Asking on one/some/all of gentoo-dev, gentoo-user, gentoo forums, |
| 24 |
planet gentoo. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
After such action I imagine a time window of 2 to 4 weeks to give people |
| 27 |
a chance to react. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
What do you think? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> I can confirm that the build with the master branch fails as it doesn't |
| 33 |
> seem able to find the spec files or doesn't accept them - the official |
| 34 |
> ones we use to build weekly releases. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
That seems to further decrease the chance that someone is using 9999 for |
| 37 |
real to me. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Best, |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Sebastian |
Archives