Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond...

[Marius Mauch]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 08:41:27 +0900
Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> wrote:

> On Wednesday 07 December 2005 01:01, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 23:19:38 +0900
> > Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> wrote:
> > > If there's no solid opposition, Saturday I will put current trunk
> > > into ~arch as 2.1_beta20051210.
> >
> > Well, I've already stated several times that IMO using a 2.1 branch
> > is wrong (use 2.2 instead), but if I'm overvoted, so it shall be.
>
> As Brian stated, 2.2 being a version higher than 2.1 will have all
> the same expectations placed on it. From what I can see, <1% of users
> know anything about 2.1 so >99% would be wondering why there was a
> jump from 2.0 to 2.2. Do you have anything against 2.1 other than
> fearing that people will expect more from it than it will turn out to
> be?

It isn't about expectations.
I just think it's bad engineering to use the same version prefix for
two rather different codebases. As for your concerns about confused
users, I don't share them. 90% will simply ignore it, 5% will do a
quick search and find something like my 2.1 thread in the forums, and
the remaining 5% either know already the situation or will draw their
own conclusions.
After all, wasn't engineering the reason why we're going to increase
the minor?

> Really, the bottom line is that regardless of what the response was
> when you asked about portage keywording, if all the arch teams had
> confidence in what we thought 2.0.53 would have been stable a long
> time ago. On the surface the only benefit is extra testing (which has
> already payed off) but it also allows others to take an active hand
> in the quality of portage as well as strengthens the communication
> channels. It's these auxillary benefits as well as the benefit of
> being able to focus on trunk more (which will yield faster rollout of
> features) that make me think it is the best way to go.

Ok, but it still doesn't really have anything to do with arch teams,
"just" general QA. Also I didn't mean to criticize you, just stating
that this option exists.

> I can't tell if you followed what I said in my last email so I'll
> reiterate. Trunk will go into ~arch on Saturday. 2.0.54 will go out
> (also in ~arch) two weeks after that with the two fixes and include
> the cache rewrite based on the opinion of a broad range of users
> (rather than just the noise makers). SHA1 will of course also go in
> based on how it is voted.

Ehm, what's the point of having .54 in ~arch after trunk is in
~arch? You won't get much testing that way as ~arch users would
already use trunk and stable users likely won't know about .54 ...
(typical visibility problem)

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.