| 1 |
Hello |
| 2 |
That would mean additional very uninteresting work. Work people |
| 3 |
usualy only do when they get paid for it and not as hobby. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I don't mean that as bad as it may sound. Ofcourse you always |
| 6 |
have to do stuff you maybe don't like that much. You do this |
| 7 |
because you like the whole thing and know that it's good for |
| 8 |
the project but telling the developer to maintain another tree |
| 9 |
which he never uses himself is maybe a bit too much. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The quallity could suffer even if he agrees to maintain a 2nd |
| 12 |
tree simply because he never really uses it himself. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I think the only usable way to this is when a defined group |
| 15 |
of devs do only maintain the stable tree. Now you need devs |
| 16 |
which are happy with doing only this. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
When all devs do both trees it wouldn't be that great i guess. |
| 19 |
Not because they are evil or lazy. It's because uninteresting |
| 20 |
work automaticaly gets the lowest priorty. Many ~arch ebuilds |
| 21 |
which are ~arch for months simply because noone marks them |
| 22 |
stable prove it. And the initial reason for the stable tree |
| 23 |
is to get something really stable and perfectly working and |
| 24 |
ultra super tested and never breaking. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Well, personaly i don't really like maintaining 2 trees. Mostly |
| 27 |
for the above said reasons. I'd also need another installation |
| 28 |
for the testing and stuff. But i would never really use the |
| 29 |
tree myself. And as you all know, the most bugs and problems |
| 30 |
are found in a real running and used environment. Ok, that's |
| 31 |
my personal opinion but the above reasons are valid for more |
| 32 |
than myself i think. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Christian |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 10:45:11AM -0500, Caleb Tennis wrote: |
| 37 |
> Hi Kurt, |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> This is an awesome GLEP idea, and I'm glad it finally got put into written |
| 40 |
> words. The one suggestion I have, which I am sure is up for a large amount |
| 41 |
> of criticism, is that I think Gentoo should charge a fee for the use of this |
| 42 |
> tree. This is, in my opinion, a premium service, and a I believe it should |
| 43 |
> come with a premium price, even if it's as low as 5 dollars per quarter. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> But maybe I'm totally off base here. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> Regards, |
| 48 |
> Caleb |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> On Monday 02 February 2004 10:17 am, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 51 |
> > All -- |
| 52 |
> > |
| 53 |
> > I've posted GLEP 19 which talks about the inclusion of a new 'stable' tree |
| 54 |
> > in portage that is updated on a periodic basis and only contains security |
| 55 |
> > and major bugfixes out of cycle. |
| 56 |
> > |
| 57 |
> > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0019.html |
| 58 |
> > |
| 59 |
> > Please take a moment to review the GLEP and offer any feedback or ask any |
| 60 |
> > questions. |
| 61 |
> > |
| 62 |
> > --kurt |
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
> -- |
| 65 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
-- |
| 68 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives