| 1 |
On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 10:27, Corey Shields wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday 10 August 2004 08:48 am, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I guess when I hear stable, I think *UN*changing... not "changing less |
| 4 |
> > often". Adding "some" stability is not what our users are asking for |
| 5 |
> > from us. They are asking for a "stable" tree. A single tree cannot |
| 6 |
> > provide this. Having a "bleeding" and a "stable" tree cannot provide |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> how do you provide security updates without changing the tree? That is the |
| 9 |
> only thing that would change in this tree (until a new "release" is made, |
| 10 |
> whether that be a new CD or a new tree, whatever). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
By making them additional, and non-mandatory. Providing the newer |
| 13 |
ebuilds as ~arch or as an overlay would both accomplish this, though |
| 14 |
like many others, I think using an overlay is a bad idea for this. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
-- |
| 17 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 18 |
Release Engineering QA Manager/Games Developer |
| 19 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Is your power animal a penguin? |
Archives