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

[Kurt Lieber]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 09:23:08AM -0400 or thereabouts, 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?

The release schedule for liveCDs/package sets is 4/year.  We're talking
about an annual cycle here.

> > One think that I think *everyone* agrees on is that any stable tree needs
> > to be regularly updated with security fixes.  With this in mind, I'm
> > concerned with trying to maintain multiple separate SYNC modules.  We'd
> > have to upgrade each one with every GLSA, thus doubling or tripling the
> > amount of CVS work needed each time.
>
> 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.

No -- we would have one tree for each release, but the difference is that
you're talking about using the tree to control versions and I'm talking
about using profiles to control versions.  With the current proposal, the
*only* difference between the main rsync module and the "stable" module is
that the latter has the --delete option removed.  This is to ensure ebuilds
remain in the tree for a predictable period of time.  It has nothing to do
with package versioning.

--kurt