Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: GLEP 19 -- Gentoo Stable Portage Tree

[Paul de Vrieze]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 03 February 2004 14:41, Kurt Lieber wrote:
>
> 'stable' is meant to indicate that the tree is a stable one.  Not that
> the ebuilds within them are more stable.  However, down the road, I
> would hope/expect that our nascent QA efforts would expand and offer
> additional QA around these ebuilds as well.  That's outside the scope
> of this GLEP, however.

Why not call it fixed instead of stable. I know what you mean, but it 
might not be clear to everyone.

>
> As for your question on transition, for 95% of all stable ebuilds, the
> path should be:
>
> ~arch --> arch --> stable:arch
>
> ~stable is there primarily for off-cycle updates.  If we need to issue
> a GLSA and updated ebuild with very little testing, it would be
> included in the stable tree marked as ~stable:arch.  Then, after
> 'adequate' testing, it would be moved to stable:arch
>
> I didn't explicitly state this in the GLEP because I don't want to
> have this be the only thing it can be used for.  Depending on how
> people start using this tree, we may look to expand to use it for
> other purposes.

I think that the whole update issue needs to be rethought. Will that be 
done by fixed-tree maintainers (in cooperation with package 
maintainers), or do package maintainers need to do it themselves. 

I think that in the end the updates need to go through a fixed-tree 
maintainer in some way.

> I understand the uncertainty, but at the same time, I want to have
> some uncertainty built into the GLEP.  Right now, there is a
> demonstrable need for enterprise users to have a more stable tree than
> we currently offer. That is the primary purpose of creating a separate
> tree.
>
> However, it is entirely possible that we will extend and expand this
> tree to be used in other ways.  I don't want this GLEP to say "this is
> the only way this tree may be used" because I'd like to leave some
> room in it to grow and expand depending on the needs of our users.

I think the GLEP is even "vague" enough to allow some implementation 
leeway. The main point is to implement this is an efficient but working 
way. I think that most people like the idea, the implemtation is 
important though.

Paul

- -- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@g.o
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAH6kObKx5DBjWFdsRAohWAJ9F3kcLyrV8mb/R/owyakKzDdv+MgCfYFb+
rhEP6C1t7c3v8KkJzzX4Lsg=
=lA/t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list