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 |