Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] The road ahead...
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:08:52
Message-Id: 20051022010805.GB18821@nightcrawler
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] The road ahead... by Jason Stubbs
1 On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 12:14:40AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
2 > On Friday 21 October 2005 19:06, Marius Mauch wrote:
3 > > Jason Stubbs wrote:
4 > > > After thinking about it, incremental "feature creep" does seem like the
5 > > > best way to go at this late stage in 2.0's life. The problem is how to
6 > > > guage what is and what is not more trouble than worth. Perhaps adhering
7 > > > to the kernel's rule of "Separate each logical change into its own patch"
8 > > > would help to ease the possible impact of larger changes?
9 > >
10 > > Probably the best solution.
11 >
12 > Brian, you agree on this? It'll mean splitting up the cache patch...
13 Would be curious how it would be chunked up...
14 patch of the new subsystem, patch of portage.py modifications?
15
16 Depends on def. of logical changes I guess; in the case of the cache
17 patch, it's kind of all or none with the changes.
18 Suggestions/preferences?
19
20 > I'm not much for the ChangeLog at all really. At least not without going over
21 > what makes a good commit message and setting up some guidelines. I'm
22 > definitely for any ChangeLog being autogenerated though.
23 No ChangeLog will piss off users; dev's already poke about it on each
24 release.
25
26 So... guideliness. ?
27 ~harring

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] The road ahead... Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o>