Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: jesse <yoda@××××××.com>
To: Matt Thrailkill <xwred1@×××××××××.net>
Cc: "gentoo-dev@g.o" <gentoo-dev@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Weekly News Letter - "Where is Gentoo Linux 1.4"
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:13:32
Message-Id: 1056582810.18054.24.camel@prefect.f00bar.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Weekly News Letter - "Where is Gentoo Linux 1.4" by Matt Thrailkill
1 this sounds good.. and the tree specification is builtin :P
2
3 SYNC="rsync://mirrors.gentoo.org/gentoo-stable"
4
5 SYNC="rsync://mirrors.gentoo.org/gentoo-current"
6
7 I would be willing to offer time on a project like this ( part time
8 unfortunately ) considering i am also already maintaining my own
9 version of the portage tree for stability reasons.
10
11
12 On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 14:38, Matt Thrailkill wrote:
13 > Its looking like this is the most practical way of going about achieving
14 > the stricter version control I and others are thinking about. And its
15 > not too much work... but its alot of wasted effort when you have a bunch
16 > of people doing it for themselves individually.
17 >
18 > Maybe it would be a good idea to have a team/project/whatever who's
19 > responsibility is to create and maintain snapshots of the Portage tree
20 > at different times, and let them take care of assigning Gentoo version
21 > numbers and to those snapshots? Meanwhile the rest of the Gentoo team
22 > can just keep moving forward with the ever changing metadistribution and
23 > not have to worry too much about distilling it for releases so much as
24 > doing good work and making cool stuff.
25 >
26 > Maybe such a project could be a sub-project of stable.gentoo.org, since
27 > they seem to be collecting alot of information about stability of things
28 > in Portage as it is.
29 >
30 > I think what you'd end up with would be most of the people working on
31 > advancing Gentoo now would be working on what is analagous to -CURRENT
32 > in FreeBSD, and then this other group of people would be like the
33 > Release Engineering team (looking at drobbins proposal, he already
34 > mentioned one), deciding when -CURRENT was ripe for splitting off and
35 > stabilizing into a release with such and such goals and featureset.
36 >
37 > At the least regimented level, it'd be a centralized place for people
38 > like Stuart and I to go and pick a static Portage tree to track for our
39 > servers. Let the people at that centralized place merge the security
40 > updates and bugfixes into the static trees as they see fit. And it
41 > shouldn't prove much hindrance to the rest of people working on
42 > advancing the bleeding edge, besides maybe modifications to Portage so
43 > it has the tree selection abilities built in.
44 >
45 > On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:01:00 +0200
46 > Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> wrote:
47 >
48 > > In such a case you might want to run your own cvs ( or subversion)
49 > > tree of "sanctioned ebuilds", and instead of emerge sync run cvs
50 > > update on the slaves. You then can copy only interesting ebuilds to
51 > > the cvs tree, and only wanted changes. Of course this is more work,
52 > > but if it should not be too hard to create a "custom tree" based on
53 > > the ebuilds that are currently installed. You could put that tree,
54 > > with the required distfiles on a custom gentoo bootcd, which you could
55 > > use to install all clients.
56 > >
57 > > Paul
58 >
59 > --
60 > gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Weekly News Letter - "Where is Gentoo Linux 1.4" Matt Thrailkill <xwred1@×××××××××.net>