Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 19, reloaded (again)

[Kurt Lieber]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 09:55:31AM -0400 or thereabouts, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> At no point have I ever seen a cycle mentioned for the "stable" tree,
> until now.

Please re-read the original post of this thread, then.

> Also, I've stated in many threads before that -releng is more than
> willing to work with whomever to make changes to the release cycle to
> best serve the needs of our users.

I've had a different experience when interacting with releng, *especially*
when it comes to changing the release cycle, so I'm not as optimistic as
you are.  I'm open to discussing it, however, so feel free to contact me
offline.

> So we move no closer to our goal of providing a stable/frozen
> installation environment than to ensure ebuilds don't disappear from the
> tree?

Yes, we do.  Ebuilds in the "stable" tree are never deleted.  Ever.  We
have one "stable" tree per release and they can be archived forever.

> How is this really beneficial to our users?  Is there a reason for
> completely separating the idea of a "stable" tree from our already
> established releases?  Is there a reason why they cannot both be modified
> to work together and do what is best for our users, gives them the most
> choice, and gives them what they're actually asking for?

That presupposes that the current proposal doesn't do provide our users the
most choice and/or what they're asking for.  I disagree with this
presupposition.

If this GLEP ends up getting approved and adopted, I see no problem
synchronizing the annual release of this stable tree with one of the
four/whatever annual releases of the livecd/package CDs.  I'm just not
going to let releng requirements get in the way of doing what is best for
this project.  If we can have the two happily co-exist without sacrificing
the needs of the server project, great.

--kurt