| 1 |
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 21:37, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tuesday 06 December 2005 11:17, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 23:06 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > Okay, new suggestion. |
| 6 |
> > > > |
| 7 |
> > > > Postpone the cache rewrite from above. Have only the minimal mods |
| 8 |
> > > > necessary to fix the PORT_LOGDIR/tee bug. Include the other two as is. |
| 9 |
> > > > That would be 2.0.54 as per the attached patch. Get that out soon and |
| 10 |
> > > > get trunk out masked at around the same time. As soon as 2.0.54 goes |
| 11 |
> > > > stable put trunk into ~arch. However, instead of ~arch meaning |
| 12 |
> > > > "regression fixes only" we could just limit it to "minor changes only" |
| 13 |
> > > > (ie. no big refactorings, rewrites or similar high risk changes) until |
| 14 |
> > > > it is time to stable it. |
| 15 |
> > > |
| 16 |
> > > I think it would be wise to reconsider the cache fixes. I know you have |
| 17 |
> > > been away from irc for a while now and have missed the daily events, |
| 18 |
> > > but most of the people we have interacted with are expecting the cache |
| 19 |
> > > updates in .54 (alot of people complaining about the hanging at 50%) |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > Call me wrong, but I'm feeling that the constant pulling and pushing on |
| 22 |
> > IRC causes many misjudgements. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> No I agree with you here, I just wanted reasoning because now I have |
| 25 |
> this ML thread to refer people to :p |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Of course, there's enough pushing and pulling on the ML here to provide food |
| 28 |
for thought. :) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Ok, I've come to a conclusion and that conclusion is: We have way too much |
| 31 |
indecisiveness. I'm not sure if that's my fault or not - am I meant to be |
| 32 |
decisive? My guess is that if I were to seriously propose that question |
| 33 |
there'd be a lot of indecision about it. ;) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
So I'm going to make a decision and offer until Friday (Saturday in my time) |
| 36 |
for opposers to solidify and state any opposition. If there's no solid |
| 37 |
opposition, Saturday I will put current trunk into ~arch as 2.1_beta20051210. |
| 38 |
I will also post on the 2.0.53 bug that fixes are available for the ldconfig |
| 39 |
bug and the tee bug stating that we'd like to also add trunk's cache |
| 40 |
subsystem to 2.0.54 and that dependening on the next council meeting(?) the |
| 41 |
SHA1 enabling as well. Doing it this way will make the ~arch users happy |
| 42 |
straight away. If we look at it as our responsibility to get fixes and new |
| 43 |
functionality into ~arch then our jobs done and we can get back to business. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
As for stable users? If arch teams are willing to selectively choose what |
| 46 |
fixes they want backported to stable (when they're not prepared to move the |
| 47 |
~arch version into stable) things will go much smoother. Of course, it would |
| 48 |
still be our responsibility to get those things backported and assert some |
| 49 |
confidence that it is working. However, once the requested fixes are |
| 50 |
backported all that needs to be done is put out the patched stable version |
| 51 |
with ~arch keywords and then leave it up to the arch teams again. Except for |
| 52 |
the slight extra burden on (which I believe many would actually find to be a |
| 53 |
blessing), it should be a win-win situation. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Cross-posting to -dev@ so that some arch people can comment. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 59 |
-- |
| 60 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives