| 1 |
On Monday 09 August 2004 12:04 am, Dylan Carlson wrote: |
| 2 |
> However, if we propose using a different tree, repo or branch tags for |
| 3 |
> enterprise, I'm not a big fan of that approach. IMO it should be taken |
| 4 |
> incrementally; that is, get it to work in the existing tree w/ new |
| 5 |
> profiles, and if there is some implementation problem getting enterprise |
| 6 |
> to co-exist with everything else, move it out. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
The reason for this is because with the current tree, old versions would be |
| 9 |
removed too soon. Yet we don't want a larger tree for our general user base, |
| 10 |
so having a seperate tree is the current solution. It would be identical to |
| 11 |
the current tree with regards to new packages, but older packages would not |
| 12 |
be deleted 3 months after they have become outdated, per se. This is the |
| 13 |
whole idea behind a stable tree. If I can go a year without needing to |
| 14 |
update gcc on a production server, then I don't want to have to update it. |
| 15 |
Yet if the version I am running is pulled out of the tree, that may cause |
| 16 |
problems for new installs. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Cheers! |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-C |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Corey Shields |
| 24 |
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team and Devrel Team |
| 25 |
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees |
| 26 |
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives