Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] release versioning meaning

[Marius Mauch]

On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 02:29:14 -0600
Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 11:54:11AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Sunday 06 November 2005 06:09, Brian Harring wrote:
> > > We've pretty much ignored the minor, and abused the micro for
> > > both bug fixing and feature inclusion.  Thoughts on using micro
> > > for _strictly_ bug fixes, and macro for features?
> >
> > I suggested this before, but it didn't go down too well...
>
> Something I ixnayed/argued against?  If so ignore me- I'm a dumb ass
> (this you should know already) ;-)
>
> As stated below, the dead 2.1 release screws with things a bit- which
> is about my only concern with fiddling with minor these days.
>
> > > Yes we'll run aground of the dead 2.1 release (not incredibly
> > > happy about that), but I'd like to see if we can get bug fixes
> > > out a bit quicker, with some semblence of a gurantee we're not
> > > tagging in stuff an admin isn't going to care about.
> >
> > What sort of bug fixes are you looking to get out quicker? While
> > the EAPI stuff drew out .53 a little longer than originally
> > expected it was still only 30 days from first rc to final (assuming
> > _rc7 is final). I can't really see the necessity for getting
> > non-regression fixes out "quicker". At the moment, a lot of fixes
> > go out all at once rather than in lots of small bumps. I doubt the
> > overall speed would change very much.
>
> Question is how will it scale for non-bugfixes, disruptive changes
> like cache backport, elog backporting, confcache, etc?  What I'm
> concerned about is what's going to occur with .5x when large changes
> start sliding into it (or into a minor)- basically the territory
> we're wandering into right now with cache/exec refactoring for .54.

My 0.02 something:
Stick with the current mess for 2.0.x, if it turns out we really need
to push something out there are still options (like using a _p suffix
or a fourth component). Never make a 2.1.x release (this version is
"burned" already).
Why this even if it's a mess? People are used to it already, adding a
2.x with x>0 could be interpreted as "the next major version" with
use-depends and stuff, 2.1 is burned as stated above and currently it
seems to work.
Savior can and will reopen this discussion anyway.

Marius

PS: Didn't we just have this discussion some weeks ago?

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.