Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond...

[Jason Stubbs]

On Wednesday 07 December 2005 01:01, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 23:19:38 +0900
> Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> wrote:
> > If there's no solid opposition, Saturday I will put current trunk into
> > ~arch as 2.1_beta20051210.
>
> Well, I've already stated several times that IMO using a 2.1 branch is
> wrong (use 2.2 instead), but if I'm overvoted, so it shall be.

As Brian stated, 2.2 being a version higher than 2.1 will have all the same 
expectations placed on it. From what I can see, <1% of users know anything 
about 2.1 so >99% would be wondering why there was a jump from 2.0 to 2.2.
Do you have anything against 2.1 other than fearing that people will expect 
more from it than it will turn out to be?

> > As for stable users? If arch teams are willing to selectively choose
> > what fixes they want backported to stable (when they're not prepared
> > to move the ~arch version into stable) things will go much smoother.
> > Of course, it would still be our responsibility to get those things
> > backported and assert some confidence that it is working. However,
> > once the requested fixes are backported all that needs to be done is
> > put out the patched stable version with ~arch keywords and then leave
> > it up to the arch teams again. Except for the slight extra burden on
> > (which I believe many would actually find to be a blessing), it
> > should be a win-win situation.
>
> Just in case you forgot and also for general reference, when I asked
> the arch teams about the portage keywording policy a few months ago
> (wether we should stable even without testing on all archs or to
> delegate that to arch teams) everyone seemed to be happy with the old
> policy, at least nobody voted for a change. As portage doesn't really
> have any arch specific code and a rather short dep list IMO it also
> doesn't yield any real benefit other than more people testing it (which
> is of course always a good thing).

Really, the bottom line is that regardless of what the response was when you 
asked about portage keywording, if all the arch teams had confidence in what 
we thought 2.0.53 would have been stable a long time ago. On the surface the 
only benefit is extra testing (which has already payed off) but it also 
allows others to take an active hand in the quality of portage as well as 
strengthens the communication channels. It's these auxillary benefits as well 
as the benefit of being able to focus on trunk more (which will yield faster 
rollout of features) that make me think it is the best way to go.

On Wednesday 07 December 2005 01:21, Alec Warner wrote:
> I spoke with Brian today ( no clue if he will be sending mail or not )
> but he stressed that he would like the cache rewrite in ~arch.

Any reason why you're speaking on his behalf?

> I would prefer that it be in .54, the code itself is old, 6+ months.  It is
> a straight backport from the 2.1 branch (the dead one) and the interface
> code to make it fit with 2.0 is small compared to the patch size ( Brian
> estimated 100-150 lines ).

These are all reasons that I myself have given already.

> I don't have a problem with releasing 2 ebuilds, one with the patch and one
> without ( or a use flag ) although the question that raises is will the
> cache rewrite actually end up in .54 final, or will it be put off :)

This, I do have a problem with. You're essentially suggesting that three lines 
be maintained rather than the current two.

I can't tell if you followed what I said in my last email so I'll reiterate.
Trunk will go into ~arch on Saturday. 2.0.54 will go out (also in ~arch) two 
weeks after that with the two fixes and include the cache rewrite based on 
the opinion of a broad range of users (rather than just the noise makers). 
SHA1 will of course also go in based on how it is voted.

--
Jason Stubbs
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list