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

[Corey Shields]

On Tuesday 10 August 2004 08:23 am, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > [side note] the releases of the tree are not tied to the releases of our
> > liveCD/package sets.[/side note]
>
> This I don't understand at all.  Why maintain 2 separate release cycles?

There is no release for this at all..  We can use the same release cd's that 
are currently available.

> So the idea is to create exactly *one* stable tree?  How is this any
> different than just doing better with our current tree?  Honestly, from
> what I've heard from our users, they want package stability (as in
> freeze) much more than anything else.  This is *exactly* why I recommend
> tying the "stable" trees with the releases.  I'm not sure I can
> understand how doing anything else really gives us anything other than
> adding more workload for the simple fact of adding workload.  Having a
> "stable" tree that still moves, and only providing a single "stable"
> tree doesn't seem to be an improvement from what we have at all.

when we say "stable" we are talking about the package freeze you mention.  
Some people want daily updates of stuff to be on the bleeding edge.  This is 
one of the biggest selling points of Gentoo, and should remain that way.  
This project aims at making a tree (or however it is implemented) that does 
not change as often.  For example, I don't need every little gcc and 
man-pages update on my production system.  This would provide some stability 
to the tree.  I guess that "stable" is a bad term here as it is easily 
confused for system stability.

Cheers,

-C

-- 
Corey Shields
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team and Devrel Team
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list