| 1 |
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 19:42, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 07:39:01PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > If the changes are reviewed roughly in proportion to the number of hunks, |
| 4 |
> > we should be okay. At minimum, we should at least see how .54 turns out |
| 5 |
> > as there will be a few major changes in there already. I kind of expect |
| 6 |
> > .54 to do better than .53 actually. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> "roughly in proportion" ? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Lot of sparse changes should get more review, or something to that affect... |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Reminds me... portage-commits. Alias right now sort of does the job, |
| 13 |
> but I want it to be an ml so we don't have to manage adding new people |
| 14 |
> in- what was the end result infra wise for that? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The initial bug was to request an alias like gentoo-x86-commits. Not sure if |
| 17 |
that's available to the general public or not, but it's likely easiest to |
| 18 |
just maintain it manually for those that request it. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> > Remember also that if we go the 2.1.x route, 2.0.x bugfixes can be pushed |
| 21 |
> > out quicker but the fixes all have to be committed twice. I for one am |
| 22 |
> > terrible at that. ;) |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> That's why we're using svn, and why merge rules. ;) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.0/ch04s03.html |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
This has given me an idea of what you are talking about but, by the sounds of |
| 29 |
it, it still won't be a walk in the park. I guess if we only merge changes |
| 30 |
from the stable branch into trunk whenever a release is made from stable it |
| 31 |
shouln't be to hard to keep track of though. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives