| 1 |
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:38:18 +0200 |
| 2 |
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Ignoring possible semantic issues for the moment, |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Please point them so I could fix them properly ^^ |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
For example all the ordering issues pointed out by others in this |
| 10 |
thread. Also the whole 'template' approach is likely going to introduce |
| 11 |
a number of issues. And as your proposal is lacking a lot of details |
| 12 |
more problems will come up over time. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> > Which in turn either means that the PM has to internally support |
| 15 |
> > the SCMs or support some new phase functions to extract the |
| 16 |
> > revision. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> After some discussions with dev-zero, I think we'll need a new phase, |
| 19 |
> possibly trigged by maint, before I was thinking about adding it to |
| 20 |
> sync. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
What exactly do you mean with 'maint'? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> > Plus it has similar (unstated) transition issues as GLEP-54, just |
| 25 |
> > avoids a new comparison algorithm and the CPV vs. atom issue. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Hmm, give me more informations about your concern. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Simply how would you actually introduce this stuff without breaking |
| 30 |
existing setups? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Marius |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives