| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Alec Warner wrote: |
| 5 |
> Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 6 |
>> Alec Warner schrieb: |
| 7 |
>>> Why Branch at 2.1_pre9? |
| 8 |
>>> Manifest2 is already in the tree and needs refinement. Branching at |
| 9 |
>>> pre7 is also a canidate, but i would rather press for keeping manifest2 |
| 10 |
>>> in the tree and fixing up it's code instead. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> Why not pre10? |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Because pre10 seems to introduce repoman problems that haven't been |
| 16 |
> solved and I've like to break out the RC's soon. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Zmedico did a lot of things with usage of global variables, however I |
| 19 |
> think that getting all that tested ( especially in scripts that we don't |
| 20 |
> keep track of ) is detremental to getting portage stable. I agree that |
| 21 |
> it's an important step; however it's just code cleanup. It is not |
| 22 |
> necessary for 2.1. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I'm looking at the diff from pre9 and pre10, and I will backport any |
| 25 |
> bugfixes if that makes everyone happy. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
In my cleanup of globals I took special care to maintain backward |
| 29 |
compatibility. I have mr_bones_ and halcyon doing profiling to |
| 30 |
track down the cause of the repoman performance issue. It should be |
| 31 |
a simple fix when we find the problem. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Zac |
| 34 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 35 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
iD8DBQFEVopv/ejvha5XGaMRAhrRAJ9dReE2iwweLKxVo9Dfrju31TbWWQCg6BE1 |
| 38 |
7uPAXHMr/2zjezpMSTM1lrY= |
| 39 |
=RX9M |
| 40 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives