| 1 |
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 21:04, Olivier Crete wrote: |
| 2 |
> Having a stable system double or tripes the amount of work every time |
| 3 |
> anyways because we need to test on each "stable tree".. Newer versions |
| 4 |
> might not work anyways.. CVS work is very little compared to testing |
| 5 |
> work. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Exactly. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
This is why I think separate trees is the way to go. If you're already |
| 10 |
having to test for *every* ebuild, why make it more complex by having |
| 11 |
TONS of "stable" ebuilds in the same tree. With a separate tree, one |
| 12 |
can simply test against the packages IN THAT TREE AND NO OTHER and get |
| 13 |
an accurate test of what the user would see. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> > One quick hack is to just sync the full tree to the stable tree without the |
| 16 |
> > --delete option, so that everything old stays and we get all of the new |
| 17 |
> > programs. Any updates we want to activate would need to be modified in the |
| 18 |
> > profiled mask files. No CVS work for the tree involved here. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> The problem with that is that the tree for stable users will start |
| 21 |
> growing and they will start getting lots of old crap... And it doesnt |
| 22 |
> give us separation of "base" and "updates" that I think many "corporate" |
| 23 |
> types want.. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
arch is base... ~arch is updates... This is simple. For people that |
| 26 |
want all the updates, they set ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to ~arch. For people |
| 27 |
that want to verify updates, they simply re-KEYWORD the package once |
| 28 |
they've approved it. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 32 |
Release Engineering QA Manager/Games Developer |
| 33 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Is your power animal a penguin? |
Archives