| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
There was a discussion a few weeks back about stopping system b0rkage; a |
| 4 |
possible sol'n had been previously discussed on the fora, ie having the |
| 5 |
tree in svn for easier branching. I understand from the recent ANNOUNCE by |
| 6 |
Robin Johnson that svn access is now available, as well as anonymous CVS. |
| 7 |
Kudos for all that work, guys. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
>> Is it correct that versioning the tree would solve it by allowing various |
| 10 |
>> releases to stick to lower versions of packages until they have been QAed |
| 11 |
>> by the gentoo community? |
| 12 |
Stuart Herbert <stuart.herbert <at> gmail.com> wrote: |
| 13 |
> Yes. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> The Gentoo package tree is a "live" tree - whatever we commit goes |
| 16 |
> straight out to the rsync mirrors for users to download and use. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Live trees are not compatible w/ a high quality product. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Patrick McLean <chutzpah <at> gentoo.org> wrote: |
| 21 |
> This is the entire reason for ~arch, packages are all tested in ~ for at |
| 22 |
> least 30 days before they are stabilized by arch teams. |
| 23 |
Well that's clearly not working is it? Seems that the users are doing the QA |
| 24 |
in the wild ATM, and often their systems are borking, even when running |
| 25 |
stable (or often enough.) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
In any event, what I'd like to raise is the issue of having a |
| 28 |
(semi-)official version of gentoo that lags behind the cutting-edge distro |
| 29 |
for stability. Is this feasible? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Apologies if this is already being discussed elsewhere. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Regards, |
| 34 |
Steve. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives