Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Olivier Crete <tester@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 19: Gentoo Stable Portage Tree -- ideas
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 23:16:40
Message-Id: 1136589111.8876.40.camel@cocagne.max-t.internal
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 19: Gentoo Stable Portage Tree -- ideas by Brian Harring
1 On Fri, 2006-06-01 at 09:39 -0800, Brian Harring wrote:
2 > On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 10:05:49AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
3 > > On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 09:00 +0000, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
4 > > > On 06/01/06, Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o> wrote:
5 > > > 1) Manpower. There are already 10,000 open bugs in bugzilla (and
6 > > > growing) without adding more.
7 > >
8 > > This is probably the primary reason it died. This, of course, ties in
9 > > greatly to #2.
10 >
11 > Automation can reduce workload, within limits. Fex, scripting for
12 > yanking packages/deptree out of normal tree for merging into a g19
13 > tree.
14
15 Baz has developed a script that would yank a subtree with the proper
16 deps for the original GLEP 19 effort. It wasn't that hard to do.
17
18 And the idea of having a subtree is that the backports would be done by
19 a specific group of developers instead of the package maintainers and
20 therefore not getting any more work on the other devs.
21
22 I'm not really sure why the older one died... We were pretty close to
23 being able to build the stages and starting to distribute it... I would
24 be very favorable to seeing the whole thing restarted.
25
26 --
27 Olivier CrĂȘte
28 tester@g.o
29 Gentoo Developer
30
31
32 --
33 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 19: Gentoo Stable Portage Tree -- ideas Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o>