| 1 |
Per some discussion on IRC, I am bring stablizing 2.1 at the pre9 or |
| 2 |
pre10 branch to the table. Reasons for doing so include: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
2006.1 - They say if 2.1 is to be in 2006.1, mid-july |
| 5 |
Xorg Modular - They cannot stable xorg modular until 2.1 is stable |
| 6 |
FreeBSD - Their entire port depends on features and bugfixes in the 2.1 |
| 7 |
series |
| 8 |
Feature use - People are already running/using features in 2.1 to the |
| 9 |
point where we have had to backport features and do -rX releases of a |
| 10 |
dead codebase ( 2.0.54 ) |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
For these reasons I request we release pre9 as an rc canidate, set a |
| 13 |
feature freeze, and then stable it. During this a 2.2 branch can be |
| 14 |
created for future development with this codebase. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Why Branch at 2.1_pre9? |
| 17 |
Manifest2 is already in the tree and needs refinement. Branching at |
| 18 |
pre7 is also a canidate, but i would rather press for keeping manifest2 |
| 19 |
in the tree and fixing up it's code instead. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
TimeLine: If all goes well, we can do an rc sometime this week: |
| 22 |
May 3rd : RC1 |
| 23 |
May 6th : RC2 |
| 24 |
May 9th : RC3 |
| 25 |
May 12th : RC4 |
| 26 |
May 15th : RC5 |
| 27 |
May 18th : RC6 |
| 28 |
May 21st : RC7 |
| 29 |
May 24th : RC8 |
| 30 |
May 27th : RC9 ( if needed ) |
| 31 |
May 30th : RC10 ( if needed ) |
| 32 |
June 5th : ~arch sys-apps/portage-2.1 |
| 33 |
July 6th : sys-apps/portage-2.1 |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Problems: We may miss the timeline and thats ok. Releng wants a |
| 36 |
working portage, not a bugging POS portage-2.1 that wasn't ready for |
| 37 |
release. This timeline is relatively tight and I think it's a nice goal |
| 38 |
to set, it's not imperative that we reach it. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Comments, Questions, opinions? |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-Alec |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives