| 1 |
On Sunday 08 August 2004 2:51 pm, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 2 |
> So, at this point, I'm suggesting three changes to the GLEP: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> 1) specify annual updates for the stable tree |
| 5 |
> 2) replacing the stable keywording stuff with stable profiling stuff |
| 6 |
> 3) adding a separate rsync module for the stable portage tree (or one |
| 7 |
> for each release of the stable portage tree) |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> With that, comments/suggestions are welcome. Please keep in mind that |
| 10 |
> this is a very focused GLEP designed to provide a stable tree and |
| 11 |
> predictable expiration of ebuilds to our users. It is not intended to |
| 12 |
> propose other far-reaching changes to Gentoo Linux. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Most of that sounds good to me, particularly the profiling. Godspeed. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
However, if we propose using a different tree, repo or branch tags for |
| 18 |
enterprise, I'm not a big fan of that approach. IMO it should be taken |
| 19 |
incrementally; that is, get it to work in the existing tree w/ new |
| 20 |
profiles, and if there is some implementation problem getting enterprise |
| 21 |
to co-exist with everything else, move it out. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The only other reason I can see justifying a new tree/repo/branch would be |
| 24 |
if the enterprise team itself was a totally separate organization of |
| 25 |
developers for certification reasons. One developer flipping between two |
| 26 |
trees both for the sake of Gentoo is duplicating a lot of effort. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Cheers, |
| 29 |
Dylan Carlson [absinthe@g.o] |
| 30 |
Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x708E165F |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives