Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] dblink: add locks for parallel-install with blockers (bug 576888)

[Brian Dolbec]

On Mon, 16 May 2016 12:20:00 -0700
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:

> On 03/14/2016 11:36 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:26:23 +0100
> > Alexander Berntsen <bernalex@g.o> wrote:
> >
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA512
> >
> >> I can't say much more than "ACK, probably makes sense" really. But
> >> please test this *a lot* before merging it.
> >
> >
> > I ack as well, the code looks good.  I don't know enough about to be
> > able to critique it in detail ;).   But it does look decent and the
> > idea of what it is doing sounds good.
> >
> >
> >> Regarding the merging of this patch, and th egencache patch that
> >> has already been released: I thought we agreed that .29 should be
> >> *only* the repoman merger, and then bug fixes go into a .30 where
> >> we try to get a stable release with the new repoman. Why was
> >> egencache merged anyway? Should we not merge repoman to stable
> >> ASAP before doing anything else? That would make .29 easier.
> >> - --
> >> Alexander
> >> bernalex@g.o
> >> https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander
> >
> > With a .29 release coming out very soon after the the .28, the .28
> > would not get much more testing for the stabilization.  If only the
> > repoman code was changed, it makes it easier to know that any bugs
> > submitted for .29 that re not repoman specific, apply to .28 as
> > well. But more that if no non-repoman bugs were filed, then that
> > clears .28 for stabilization.
>
> Can we merge this now? Feedback from the user who reported the issue
> is very positive:
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=576786#c7


Alexander, with 2.3.0_rc1-r1 released, I think we can re-open portage
code for more patches before the official 2.3.0 release.  We now know
the split install is working, it only had the one portage bug from the
split.
-- 
Brian Dolbec <dolsen>