| 1 |
Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday 07 December 2005 01:01, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 23:19:38 +0900 |
| 5 |
>>Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>>>If there's no solid opposition, Saturday I will put current trunk into |
| 8 |
>>>~arch as 2.1_beta20051210. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>>Well, I've already stated several times that IMO using a 2.1 branch is |
| 11 |
>>wrong (use 2.2 instead), but if I'm overvoted, so it shall be. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> As Brian stated, 2.2 being a version higher than 2.1 will have all the same |
| 15 |
> expectations placed on it. From what I can see, <1% of users know anything |
| 16 |
> about 2.1 so >99% would be wondering why there was a jump from 2.0 to 2.2. |
| 17 |
> Do you have anything against 2.1 other than fearing that people will expect |
| 18 |
> more from it than it will turn out to be? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
>>>As for stable users? If arch teams are willing to selectively choose |
| 22 |
>>>what fixes they want backported to stable (when they're not prepared |
| 23 |
>>>to move the ~arch version into stable) things will go much smoother. |
| 24 |
>>>Of course, it would still be our responsibility to get those things |
| 25 |
>>>backported and assert some confidence that it is working. However, |
| 26 |
>>>once the requested fixes are backported all that needs to be done is |
| 27 |
>>>put out the patched stable version with ~arch keywords and then leave |
| 28 |
>>>it up to the arch teams again. Except for the slight extra burden on |
| 29 |
>>>(which I believe many would actually find to be a blessing), it |
| 30 |
>>>should be a win-win situation. |
| 31 |
>> |
| 32 |
>>Just in case you forgot and also for general reference, when I asked |
| 33 |
>>the arch teams about the portage keywording policy a few months ago |
| 34 |
>>(wether we should stable even without testing on all archs or to |
| 35 |
>>delegate that to arch teams) everyone seemed to be happy with the old |
| 36 |
>>policy, at least nobody voted for a change. As portage doesn't really |
| 37 |
>>have any arch specific code and a rather short dep list IMO it also |
| 38 |
>>doesn't yield any real benefit other than more people testing it (which |
| 39 |
>>is of course always a good thing). |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> Really, the bottom line is that regardless of what the response was when you |
| 43 |
> asked about portage keywording, if all the arch teams had confidence in what |
| 44 |
> we thought 2.0.53 would have been stable a long time ago. On the surface the |
| 45 |
> only benefit is extra testing (which has already payed off) but it also |
| 46 |
> allows others to take an active hand in the quality of portage as well as |
| 47 |
> strengthens the communication channels. It's these auxillary benefits as well |
| 48 |
> as the benefit of being able to focus on trunk more (which will yield faster |
| 49 |
> rollout of features) that make me think it is the best way to go. |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> On Wednesday 07 December 2005 01:21, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
>>I spoke with Brian today ( no clue if he will be sending mail or not ) |
| 54 |
>>but he stressed that he would like the cache rewrite in ~arch. |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> Any reason why you're speaking on his behalf? |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
From what I understood he was busy/moving IRL and didn't have time to |
| 62 |
catch up on his mail, so I told him I would send something expressing |
| 63 |
what he said when we spoke on IRC; he didn't explicitly tell me to do |
| 64 |
so, but I told him I was going to. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
>>I would prefer that it be in .54, the code itself is old, 6+ months. It is |
| 67 |
>>a straight backport from the 2.1 branch (the dead one) and the interface |
| 68 |
>>code to make it fit with 2.0 is small compared to the patch size ( Brian |
| 69 |
>>estimated 100-150 lines ). |
| 70 |
> |
| 71 |
> |
| 72 |
> These are all reasons that I myself have given already. |
| 73 |
> |
| 74 |
> |
| 75 |
>>I don't have a problem with releasing 2 ebuilds, one with the patch and one |
| 76 |
>>without ( or a use flag ) although the question that raises is will the |
| 77 |
>>cache rewrite actually end up in .54 final, or will it be put off :) |
| 78 |
> |
| 79 |
> |
| 80 |
> This, I do have a problem with. You're essentially suggesting that three lines |
| 81 |
> be maintained rather than the current two. |
| 82 |
> |
| 83 |
> I can't tell if you followed what I said in my last email so I'll reiterate. |
| 84 |
> Trunk will go into ~arch on Saturday. 2.0.54 will go out (also in ~arch) two |
| 85 |
> weeks after that with the two fixes and include the cache rewrite based on |
| 86 |
> the opinion of a broad range of users (rather than just the noise makers). |
| 87 |
> SHA1 will of course also go in based on how it is voted. |
| 88 |
|
| 89 |
Bah, for some reason I kept thinking that the rewrite wasn't in trunk, |
| 90 |
but as I look in svn now I see it there; my apologies :/ |
| 91 |
|
| 92 |
The detailed explanation looks good to me ;) |
| 93 |
|
| 94 |
-Alec Warner (Antarus) |
| 95 |
-- |
| 96 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives