| 1 |
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Sorry, to be clear the conclusion I was hoping to draw is that one has 2 |
| 5 |
> repos instead of 1. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> 1) Rolling. |
| 8 |
> 2) Stable. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Rolling is typical ~arch Gentoo. People in rolling can do whatever they |
| 11 |
> want; they can't affect stable at all. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Stable is an entirely separate repo, a fork, where CPVs are pulled from |
| 14 |
> Rolling into Stable. If Stable wants to keep a gnarly old version of some |
| 15 |
> package around; great! But the rolling people don't have to care. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
This seems like it would be fairly painful to maintain. You'd need to |
| 19 |
constantly pull in new packages, and prune out old ones. It would |
| 20 |
duplicate many of the functions maintainers already do. I doubt |
| 21 |
anybody would go to the trouble to make this happen. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Nothing stops Gentoo (the organization / community) from housing the above |
| 25 |
> scheme in one organization. I mean, nothing but political will right? :) |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
That, and the fact that it will take a ton of effort to maintain. |
| 29 |
Most likely if the tree is split stable will just be abandoned. |
| 30 |
Anybody who is unsatisfied with the unstable tree would just quit |
| 31 |
entirely, making their unstable packages unmaintained as well. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
You need a critical mass to maintain a distro. IMO having the stable |
| 34 |
tree does not add all that much work for those who don't care about |
| 35 |
it, but it gets us quite a few contributors. Maybe we can afford to |
| 36 |
lose them, or maybe enough will just move to unstable. I'm not sure |
| 37 |
it is easy to predict what the outcome of removing stable will be. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
I'm all for looking for ways to make stable less of a burden on those |
| 40 |
who aren't interested in it. As far as I can tell the main one is not |
| 41 |
being able to remove old packages without getting reverse deps |
| 42 |
keyworded. I think that all this would take is a script that would |
| 43 |
drop the stable keywords on the reverse deps, which the council has |
| 44 |
basically already approved (after a waiting period). |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
Rich |
Archives