| 1 |
On Friday 21 October 2005 19:06, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > After thinking about it, incremental "feature creep" does seem like the |
| 4 |
> > best way to go at this late stage in 2.0's life. The problem is how to |
| 5 |
> > guage what is and what is not more trouble than worth. Perhaps adhering |
| 6 |
> > to the kernel's rule of "Separate each logical change into its own patch" |
| 7 |
> > would help to ease the possible impact of larger changes? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Probably the best solution. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
So we're all agreed then? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
* 2.x will never go beyond 2.0 |
| 14 |
* New features are considered on a case by case basis |
| 15 |
* New features can be integrated whenever they're ready (and we're not |
| 16 |
stabalizing or the feature doesn't aid stabalizing) |
| 17 |
* Major changes need to be split up |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives