| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA512 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 09/17/2015 12:27 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> |
| 6 |
> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
.. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> So, part of me really wonders if it is worth it just to save a |
| 13 |
> bunch of revbumps that probably could be done by a script and with |
| 14 |
> git it can even happen atomically and with the possibility of |
| 15 |
> review or testing. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Another thing that strikes me is separation of stable vs ~arch behavior. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
This applies in particular with in-place eclass alterations. Users on |
| 21 |
~arch should normally expect more activity (in particular number of |
| 22 |
builds and changes, that is after all its definition). Stable users on |
| 23 |
the other hand might want slower update cycle for non-security upgrades. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Reading this thread I got hit with a question whether this boundary is |
| 26 |
properly protected if doing in-place eclass changes? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
- -- |
| 30 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
| 31 |
Public PGP key 0xE3EDFAE3 at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
| 32 |
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |
| 33 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJV+qq0AAoJECULev7WN52FkUIH/2P2tqTNf5YAU7VnB4Mx/glv |
| 36 |
Ccqu/rlS+bJsBpJJRombIUwYnKOu+f9Fl49VCsOGVxmulKRR0lciTA4VKGo4XLQb |
| 37 |
zk0DGudcPNIvUPuVUojDhzhS9RHoVZuwwZmn4SG6gX7XoFB5fkYYTNE7pt0YCmao |
| 38 |
oP4Ku/6df4Y574BHUo01AXlipWnr7HLfIxKTifXXbDhW6O5z9WYfMOd7bHysJz8W |
| 39 |
Rk+QzIkDkpSC7hcofVtM24gAH/BYHe67rV2bMJsVyeoseuzT2PY9rZdFdvVqJWU8 |
| 40 |
mSLdEqOdCC+bShtIeSMYV+r0ZsbrskPONvdILadi+Be5bkNSHh7UIDPZXVbanD4= |
| 41 |
=5p9L |
| 42 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives