Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: m h <sesquile@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Re: Refactoring of emerge code
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 17:00:30
In Reply to: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Re: Refactoring of emerge code by Duncan <>
1 On 5/9/06, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote:
2 > m h posted <e36b84ee0605082138t6be6ef5fk254a5f5e843b5f41@××××××××××.com>,
3 > excerpted below, on Mon, 08 May 2006 21:38:49 -0700:
4 >
5 > > hat is the status of my patches? I'm assumming that they are
6 > > rejected... I'm curious the know the reason. If the plan is to
7 > > migrate to a new improved version of portage (sooner rather than
8 > > later), then maybe I'll try to help out Brian with his efforts.
9 >
10 > I wouldn't assume that at this point. You just provided them what, a
11 > couple days ago, right?
13 Yep, just a couple of days.
15 >
16 > On bug reports and the like, two weeks before a response isn't unusual.
17 > You have a couple preliminary responses here already. I'd not even
18 > /start/ to get antsy for two weeks, and wouldn't consider a "bump" request
19 > for another week after that, anyway.
21 I guess my concern was that there was discussion of them being tested
22 in IRC and I never heard any feedback from that.
24 My other concern is that they will get lost in the ether. (Since new
25 rcs seems to be coming out now).
27 >
28 > Also note that trunk is frozen. Bug fixes only until 2.1 is split off to
29 > stabilize. I'd not expect the patches to get in until trunk thaws again,
30 > for 2.2 or whatever. That means there's no immediate hurry on dealing
31 > with the patches, and that most of the focus ATM is on bugfixes for 2.1,
32 > in ordered to get the -rcs out and then the release, and get it tested and
33 > fully stabilized for 2006.1, now set for July, which given a 30 day
34 > stabilization means we need to get thru the -rcs and to release preferably
35 > by June first or so. I do /not/ expect your patches to get into 2.1. You
36 > are at least a week to 10 days too late for that.
38 Fair enough, if the trunk is frozen, I wish that would have been
39 indicated to me. No one has said that yet. The patches don't add any
40 functionality per se, but could be seen as bug fixes for
41 sloppy/extraneous code ;)
43 Again, this isn't supposed to be taken in the wrong way. I'm coming
44 from the point of view of a lurker of normal gentoo (and
45 user/psuedo-dev of the prefix branch (which is based on 2.1)) I
46 appreciate the clarification you've provided Duncan. Again, if 2.1 is
47 just throw-away code, then perhaps code cleanup refactoring is a waste
48 of effort, but I don't think it is....
50 -matt
52 --
53 gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Re: Refactoring of emerge code Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>