| 1 |
Alec Warner schrieb: |
| 2 |
> Why Branch at 2.1_pre9? |
| 3 |
> Manifest2 is already in the tree and needs refinement. Branching at |
| 4 |
> pre7 is also a canidate, but i would rather press for keeping manifest2 |
| 5 |
> in the tree and fixing up it's code instead. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Why not pre10? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> TimeLine: If all goes well, we can do an rc sometime this week: |
| 10 |
> May 3rd : RC1 |
| 11 |
> May 6th : RC2 |
| 12 |
> May 9th : RC3 |
| 13 |
> May 12th : RC4 |
| 14 |
> May 15th : RC5 |
| 15 |
> May 18th : RC6 |
| 16 |
> May 21st : RC7 |
| 17 |
> May 24th : RC8 |
| 18 |
> May 27th : RC9 ( if needed ) |
| 19 |
> May 30th : RC10 ( if needed ) |
| 20 |
> June 5th : ~arch sys-apps/portage-2.1 |
| 21 |
> July 6th : sys-apps/portage-2.1 |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
What's the point of planning a dozen rc versions ahead of time? Make a |
| 24 |
rc1, see how it goes and release another rc version only if necessary |
| 25 |
(for bugfixes). Also I absolutely *hate* date based roadmaps, just make |
| 26 |
it "stable 2.1 when no new rc has been made for n weeks". |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> Problems: We may miss the timeline and thats ok. Releng wants a |
| 29 |
> working portage, not a bugging POS portage-2.1 that wasn't ready for |
| 30 |
> release. This timeline is relatively tight and I think it's a nice goal |
| 31 |
> to set, it's not imperative that we reach it. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Comments, Questions, opinions? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Date based roadmaps suck. They add a lot of pressure for no benefit |
| 36 |
(other than a rough target date, and for that you don't need a roadmap). |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Marius |
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives