| 1 |
On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 19:24, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 2 |
> I've had a different experience when interacting with releng, *especially* |
| 3 |
> when it comes to changing the release cycle, so I'm not as optimistic as |
| 4 |
> you are. I'm open to discussing it, however, so feel free to contact me |
| 5 |
> offline. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I once had a bad experience with a police officer who was an asshole. |
| 8 |
By extension, all police should not be trusted. *grin* |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Not even attempting a conversation gets nowhere. I am telling you right |
| 11 |
now (actually in the other post) that releng *is* willing to work on the |
| 12 |
release cycles. To be honest, I was going to suggest that we switch to |
| 13 |
a 6-month release cycle for our release media, simply to give more time |
| 14 |
between releases and to ease the pressure on arch maintainers and leads |
| 15 |
who work with releng. It also removes any chance for excuses on why |
| 16 |
anyone doesn't meet the release deadlines. I was planning on having |
| 17 |
this voted on first by releng, then by the managers, and implemented for |
| 18 |
2005.X and beyond. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> > So we move no closer to our goal of providing a stable/frozen |
| 21 |
> > installation environment than to ensure ebuilds don't disappear from the |
| 22 |
> > tree? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Yes, we do. Ebuilds in the "stable" tree are never deleted. Ever. We |
| 25 |
> have one "stable" tree per release and they can be archived forever. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
This is exactly what I was saying. I think the confusion was us both |
| 28 |
using different terminology to describe the same thing. This is exactly |
| 29 |
what I was describing. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> > How is this really beneficial to our users? Is there a reason for |
| 32 |
> > completely separating the idea of a "stable" tree from our already |
| 33 |
> > established releases? Is there a reason why they cannot both be modified |
| 34 |
> > to work together and do what is best for our users, gives them the most |
| 35 |
> > choice, and gives them what they're actually asking for? |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> That presupposes that the current proposal doesn't do provide our users the |
| 38 |
> most choice and/or what they're asking for. I disagree with this |
| 39 |
> presupposition. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Actually, we were both talking about the same thing, but describing it |
| 42 |
differently. Sorry for the confusion. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> If this GLEP ends up getting approved and adopted, I see no problem |
| 45 |
> synchronizing the annual release of this stable tree with one of the |
| 46 |
> four/whatever annual releases of the livecd/package CDs. I'm just not |
| 47 |
> going to let releng requirements get in the way of doing what is best for |
| 48 |
> this project. If we can have the two happily co-exist without sacrificing |
| 49 |
> the needs of the server project, great. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Would it be too horrible to change to a 6-month release? Then we could |
| 52 |
coincide the information between us both and not have 2 separate |
| 53 |
processes for doing essentially the same thing. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
-- |
| 56 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 57 |
Release Engineering QA Manager/Games Developer |
| 58 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Is your power animal a penguin? |
Archives