Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Matt Thrailkill <xwred1@×××××××××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Weekly News Letter - "Where is Gentoo Linux 1.4"
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:34:55
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Weekly News Letter - "Where is Gentoo Linux 1.4" by Paul de Vrieze
1 Its looking like this is the most practical way of going about achieving
2 the stricter version control I and others are thinking about. And its
3 not too much work... but its alot of wasted effort when you have a bunch
4 of people doing it for themselves individually.
6 Maybe it would be a good idea to have a team/project/whatever who's
7 responsibility is to create and maintain snapshots of the Portage tree
8 at different times, and let them take care of assigning Gentoo version
9 numbers and to those snapshots? Meanwhile the rest of the Gentoo team
10 can just keep moving forward with the ever changing metadistribution and
11 not have to worry too much about distilling it for releases so much as
12 doing good work and making cool stuff.
14 Maybe such a project could be a sub-project of, since
15 they seem to be collecting alot of information about stability of things
16 in Portage as it is.
18 I think what you'd end up with would be most of the people working on
19 advancing Gentoo now would be working on what is analagous to -CURRENT
20 in FreeBSD, and then this other group of people would be like the
21 Release Engineering team (looking at drobbins proposal, he already
22 mentioned one), deciding when -CURRENT was ripe for splitting off and
23 stabilizing into a release with such and such goals and featureset.
25 At the least regimented level, it'd be a centralized place for people
26 like Stuart and I to go and pick a static Portage tree to track for our
27 servers. Let the people at that centralized place merge the security
28 updates and bugfixes into the static trees as they see fit. And it
29 shouldn't prove much hindrance to the rest of people working on
30 advancing the bleeding edge, besides maybe modifications to Portage so
31 it has the tree selection abilities built in.
33 On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:01:00 +0200
34 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> wrote:
36 > In such a case you might want to run your own cvs ( or subversion)
37 > tree of "sanctioned ebuilds", and instead of emerge sync run cvs
38 > update on the slaves. You then can copy only interesting ebuilds to
39 > the cvs tree, and only wanted changes. Of course this is more work,
40 > but if it should not be too hard to create a "custom tree" based on
41 > the ebuilds that are currently installed. You could put that tree,
42 > with the required distfiles on a custom gentoo bootcd, which you could
43 > use to install all clients.
44 >
45 > Paul
47 --
48 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list