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

[Jason Stubbs]

On Wednesday 07 December 2005 11:57, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 08:41:27 +0900
>
> Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> It isn't about expectations.

Ok, I misunderstood your previous posts on this topic then.

> I just think it's bad engineering to use the same version prefix for
> two rather different codebases. ... After all, wasn't engineering the reason
> why we're going to increase the minor?

I don't understand where the conflict comes in between the two. Internally, 
the old 2.1 has been known as HEAD, trunk and now 2.1-experimental. 
Externally, it's been known as 2.1.0_alpha20050718. The set of new features 
available in 2.1.0_alpha20050718 are pretty much all available in current 
trunk as far as I know... You'll need to explain the issue in a little bit 
more detail.

> > 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.
>
> Ok, but it still doesn't really have anything to do with arch teams,
> "just" general QA.

True, but currently there's no general QA team for coordinating the stability 
of the tree in general. Instead, this has been left up to the individual arch 
teams (which is a little strange/disorganized) so 


> Also I didn't mean to criticize you, just stating that this option exists.

Isn't it your responsibility to? ;)

> > 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.
>
> Ehm, what's the point of having .54 in ~arch after trunk is in
> ~arch? You won't get much testing that way as ~arch users would
> already use trunk and stable users likely won't know about .54 ...
> (typical visibility problem)

The visibility problem is exactly why I'm suggesting it be done that way. 
Neither ~arch users nor arch users get needless bumps and testing of trunk 
doesn't get held up at all. .54 would be .53 + selective patches from trunk 
hence all its parts will have had extensive testing. The whole would only 
need a minimal amount of testing by those marking it stable before doing so.

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