Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Unstable branch proposal - second round

[George Shapovalov]

Please see below.

On Friday 29 March 2002 22:02, you wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:40, Chris Johnson got a bunch of monkeys together
> > I vote strongly against any cvs branches of the portage tree--that's why
> > we currently have the -rx designations, anyway! Leverage that and the
> > organic nature of the community (i.e., see my proposal at
>
> http://relentless.org:8000/gentoo/forum/message?message_id=6584&forum_id=65
>81
>
> > ) to get a simple, effective system.
> >
> > Please, avoid the duplication of effort that all the branches of debian
> > represent!
> >
> > Chris
>
[snip]
> The problem comes when a new user is trying to build their system and they
> get all these errors.  We don't want to discourage newcomers by having a
> tree of ebuilds that is not 100% stable for their first installation.
>
> That was my main reason for suggesting seperate CVS branch(es).
[snip]

> Perhaps a compromise ....
>
> A stable/install CVS branch that is only used during the initial
> bootstrap/build process and afterwards portage defaults to using the
> regular CVS tree?
  With multiple stability levels you will get the same effect by setting 
Stability_Level = approved
rsync_Stability_Level = Stability_Level
and withoud a need for a separate CVS branch!
New users will get a stable system and when later they learn enough about 
linux and gentoo in particular they will know what these flags mean and will 
start exploring ... :-).
(here I refer to the flags I introduced in my writeup at:
www.its.caltech.edu/~georges/gentoo/epsp/proposal.html )
   Chris proposed somewhat different definition of stability levels. While 
overall structure is different the "stable" ebuilds will correspond to just 
such level. (please visit:
http://relentless.org:8000/gentoo/forum/message?message_id=6584&forum_id=6581
for his submissions where he brings up some important aspects. Chris: I am 
going to reply in the forum soon).

Side note:
I am not sure if we should use forum which Chis set up or continue in the 
list. First allows nice concise place for discussion, second gives better 
exposure. In fact there is an alternative - we can use bugs.gentoo.org and I 
am going to enter this proposal there (not only my writeup but whatever will 
accumulate by then)  either when 1.0 comes out (and freeze is over) or in 
about a week or two, whichever is shorter. However this has the same problem 
of low exposure, on the other hand it grabs attention of core group, so right 
now I like that the best. 
If only there was a discussion area setup under gentoo.org (which would not 
require a bugzilla account. I have no problem with that but it scares off 
many people. For the "discussion" situation it is not really necessary 
anyway).

George