Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 2.1 release candidate soon?]
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 05:09:32
Message-Id: 4435F419.4060902@gentoo.org
1 Sorry, send with wrong address earlier.
2
3
4 -------- Original Message --------
5 Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 2.1 release candidate soon?
6 Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 20:09:06 -0400
7 From: Alec Warner <warnera6@×××××××.edu>
8 To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
9 References: <4435766E.2060901@g.o>
10
11 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
12 Hash: SHA1
13
14 > Hi everyone,
15 >
16 > I think the current quality level of the 2.1 branch is good enough to
17 > make it a release candidate. From my perspective, it seems like a
18 > waste of everyone's time to roll a 2.0.55 release when 2.1 is a
19 > perfectly good replacement (with lots of bug fixes relative to
20 > 2.0.54).
21
22 (Pardon if this looks weird, Thunderbird is doing all kinds of weird
23 things to this E-mail)
24
25 Vapier in particular has backported some changes into the 2.0.54 tree
26 with I assume hopes to make a 2.0.55 release. The 2.1 release is a
27 large change over the 2.0 series, I'd like to give people a bit more
28 time on 2.0. For a while this may mean 2.0 and 2.1 stable at the same
29 time, although there is no harm in that either. We haven't had a new
30 2.0 release in a while, and there are features worth backporting IMHO.
31
32 Remember that while most of the development community runs portage-2.1
33 many of the users do not; and they have not seen a 2.0 release in some
34 time. I think we can stable 2.0.55 faster than 2.1, as 2.1 will
35 probably need a series of _rc releases before being considered stable.
36
37 -Alec Warner (antarus)
38
39 --
40 gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [Fwd: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 2.1 release candidate soon?] Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>