| 1 |
On Tuesday 03 February 2004 16:33, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 03:07:43PM +0200 or thereabouts, Dan Armak wrote: |
| 3 |
> > And, right now I'm thinking about the developer end of things. It'd be |
| 4 |
> > more comfortable for me to work with a single cvs tree and keywords. |
| 5 |
> > Fixing up the rsync end is an implementation detail :-) |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> For most cases, this would be exactly how things work -- you use the main |
| 8 |
> CVS tree and just have an extra set of keywords to administer. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> The only time you'll have to deal with a separate tree is for off-cycle |
| 11 |
> updates, which are comprised of security updates and major bugfixes. IMO, |
| 12 |
> this is infrequent enough to outweigh any potential inconveniences to the |
| 13 |
> dev team. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
A bigger inconvinience is that every developer will have to maintain a stable |
| 16 |
tree system image (or real system) to test any off-cycle updates he may have |
| 17 |
to do, often hurrying because of a major vulnerability already published. |
| 18 |
will that be required? Is there a way around it? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Dan Armak |
| 22 |
Gentoo Linux developer (KDE) |
| 23 |
Matan, Israel |
| 24 |
Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key |
| 25 |
Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD 0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951 |
Archives