| 1 |
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 09:58:19AM -0500 or thereabouts, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> Also, can we drop the idea of "stable"? It does not fit the audience |
| 3 |
> that it seems we're shooting for at all. I would think "enterprise" is |
| 4 |
> much more fitting, as suggested by others before myself. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
In general, I try to avoid solutions that are too specific because they |
| 7 |
tend to be the ones that get lost in the shuffle or go unmaintained after |
| 8 |
one or two iterations. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I also hope that the stable tree *will* eventually turn into something akin |
| 11 |
to Debian Stable (although updated more frequently) or FreeBSD-stable. |
| 12 |
That's up to the QA team, though. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I'd like to keep the name stable if possible for the two reasons above. |
| 15 |
If folks really want a name change, I'd prefer something non-specific like |
| 16 |
'fixed' which I think pauldv suggested earlier. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> This is the initial proposal for the GLEP mainly to get comments and to |
| 19 |
> get the ball rolling from our developers and the community. As I see |
| 20 |
> it, pretty much anything in the GLEP is subject to change. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Yep. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> I agree with this completely. I see no reason at all for things such as |
| 25 |
> games to be added to the enterprise Gentoo. If a user really wants |
| 26 |
> them, they can grab the ebuild from the "regular" portage tree and add |
| 27 |
> it to their overlay. I would see enterprise Gentoo as a stable |
| 28 |
> platform for use in commercial environments, and by users which value |
| 29 |
> stability over the most current packages. This would allow Gentoo to |
| 30 |
> fit a much larger audience, especially since our "Enterprise" version |
| 31 |
> would still be free for all to use. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I don't want to get in the business of defining what shouldn't be in this |
| 34 |
tree. While *I'm* proposing it for use by enterprise users, if we can |
| 35 |
reasonably accomodate other types of users, then I think we should. While |
| 36 |
adding games may not make sense for enterprise users, maybe there are other |
| 37 |
uses for it where it does make sense. It doesn't really cost us anything |
| 38 |
to keep that ability in there, so why remove it? |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
--kurt |
Archives