| 1 |
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 07:46:24PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/29/05 Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
> > That and the fact the 2.1 state should be decided, if we're going to |
| 4 |
> > have (effectively) two branches of development going at once, vs |
| 5 |
> > developmental line and maintenance branch. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Well, basically I wanted to deploy elog and Jason mentioned some other |
| 8 |
> changes as well, and while talking about it we couldn't find much in |
| 9 |
> head that we didn't want out. Unfortunately you weren't around at that |
| 10 |
> time. Also I think we could use 2.1 to add all the hacks we need for |
| 11 |
> transitioning (like the EAPI and Manifest stuff). |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I'd rather tag the hacks into stable release, as what the EAPI |
| 14 |
patch is intended to do. Reasoning is pretty straightforward; I trust |
| 15 |
stable code to hold less user visible bugs now, then what 2.1 would |
| 16 |
hold- stable has been shoved through the ringer; 2.1 hasn't been |
| 17 |
shoved through a comparable ringer. Further, if we're tagging |
| 18 |
compatibility hacks for 2.0.51 -> 3.0, the thing that matters is the |
| 19 |
compatibility additions, not extra (potentially buggy) features. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Don't get me wrong- I'm still watching 2.1 bugs, but mainly for |
| 22 |
correction of stuff w/in rewrite. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
2.1 *could* be made into a full release line, I just am convinced the |
| 25 |
time to do so has come and gone already. Rewrite isn't complete, |
| 26 |
but the base of it is saner then 2.x's, and people (beyond me) are |
| 27 |
actively working on it. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Further, people are sniffing around re: capabilities the rewrite has |
| 30 |
natively, N portdir's for example for the -osx crew. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
My 2 cents, at least. |
| 33 |
~harring |
Archives