| 1 |
begin quote |
| 2 |
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:17:06 -0500 |
| 3 |
Kurt Lieber <klieber@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> All -- |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I've posted GLEP 19 which talks about the inclusion of a new 'stable' |
| 8 |
> tree in portage that is updated on a periodic basis and only contains |
| 9 |
> security and major bugfixes out of cycle. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0019.html |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Please take a moment to review the GLEP and offer any feedback or ask |
| 14 |
> any questions. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
okay, here are some points: |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
a) 4 / year , retention 1 year... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
can we start with 2/year (we lag behind as is, we're notoriously |
| 23 |
ungood with timetables. See 1.4 release before vouching anything ;) and |
| 24 |
a 2 year retention? 1 year retention still feels "hurried" for much |
| 25 |
enterprise use. Especially if you spend 4 months with forking and |
| 26 |
building on it, then have 8 months of use-work, then have to restart. |
| 27 |
(yep, reallife scenario) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
b) Updates and update distribution: |
| 30 |
Updates should be distributed -separately- . once the tree is frozen |
| 31 |
"stable" it remains so until the server goes down. updates to stable |
| 32 |
builds should have an alternate path of exposure. This is another |
| 33 |
requirement if any organization wish to track and work against a |
| 34 |
distribution. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
supplying it as : |
| 37 |
2004-02-stable |
| 38 |
2004-02-updates |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
and using a default overlay would be a viable solution in a case like |
| 41 |
this, as long as the "stable" tree isn't changed. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
//Spider |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
begin .signature |
| 51 |
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! |
| 52 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 53 |
end |
Archives