| 1 |
Roy Marples wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 12:15 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Roy Marples wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> This is just a heads up for getting baselayout-2 stable. Next week I |
| 5 |
>>> plan to put baselayout-2.0.0_rc1 into the tree without any keywords and |
| 6 |
>>> it will be removed from package.mask (keeping the current alphas masked |
| 7 |
>>> though). Arch teams will then be pinged on a bug to keyword |
| 8 |
>>> baselayout-2. |
| 9 |
>> You should find someone from the GDP to write some user migration docs. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Good idea. Any volunteers? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
(GDP): you give us the info, we'll document it for you. Or I will at least. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Of equal concern to me, however are a few issues: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
1) How will stabilization work? Is it a forced upgrade from stable 1.x |
| 18 |
to 2.x, or can it be slotted? |
| 19 |
2) It will be completely unmanageable to have more than one set of |
| 20 |
baselayout instructions in the handbook & other docs, so there |
| 21 |
definitely is a need for the migration doc. |
| 22 |
3) How long will 1.x be kept stable? (This affects how long the old |
| 23 |
instructions are in the handbooks etc.) |
| 24 |
4) What baselayout will be used in the next release? (Maybe that's more |
| 25 |
of a releng question.) |
| 26 |
5) Do you have a rough estimate (month, 3 weeks, 5 weeks, what?) on when |
| 27 |
the first arches might be stabilizing 2.x? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
This is all from the GDP's perspective, almost none of it is of interest |
| 30 |
to me as a user; I expect this sh** to work just as well as |
| 31 |
baselayout-1.x when I hit the upgrade myself. :) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Documenting this will be a major arsepain--er, effort--since baselayout |
| 34 |
1.x directions are already mixed in so well with pretty much every doc |
| 35 |
we have. I'm not at all looking forward to fixing the docs when the time |
| 36 |
comes, but I will do it provided I get to borrow your brain for a good |
| 37 |
long time. :) |
Archives