Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] going to need a 2.0.53-rc8

[Jason Stubbs]

On Sunday 13 November 2005 04:00, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 02:26:41PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Saturday 12 November 2005 08:14, Brian Harring wrote:
> > > Might be worth noting that as of my last sync, .53* and friends are
> > > *still* ~arch.
> >
> > Yep, waiting on approval from the arch teams before going stable. I'll be
> > posting a notification here when it happens as well. While waiting on the
> > arch teams has extended the ~arch time of .53_preX, they've also exposed
> > regressions that wouldn't have been picked up otherwise. Other than
> > documentation concerns, they seem happy with .53 as it stands and I
> > really don't want to jeopardize (that's a weird lookin' word) that.
> >
> > How's this for a compromise? Release the current 2.0.53 into stable so
> > that 2.0.51.22-r3 can be dropped out of the picture altogether. Then
> > release a 2.0.53.1 into ~arch with the lib handling fix so that we can
> > get some guaranteed testing time of the patch. In a table:
> >
> > 2.0.53       arch
> > 2.0.53_p1    ~arch
> > 2.0.54_pre1  package.mask
> >
> > After a couple of weeks, move 2.0.53_p1 to stable and drop 2.0.53.
>
> No major complaints on general idea, dependant on timeframe (outside
> of our control).

Looks like it'll be 2-3 days at the most. Solar has one bug that might be a 
regression. If more info proves that it is, I'd like to throw a fix together 
quickly and wrap that into _p1 as well.

> *cough* that's that funky _p1 you're using there? :)

patchlevel... I think it gives a stronger impression that 2.0.53 is distinct 
from 2.0.54. Is distinct the right word? I mean that it kind of shows that 
2.0.53 is done but there was something that needed to be fixed quickly. Given 
portage's history of using lots of dots, 2.0.53.1 doesn't have as much 
impact. Is the "*cough*" a complaint of sorts?

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