| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Alec Warner wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> Zmedico did a lot of things with usage of global variables, however I |
| 6 |
>>>> think that getting all that tested ( especially in scripts that we don't |
| 7 |
>>>> keep track of ) is detremental to getting portage stable. I agree that |
| 8 |
>>>> it's an important step; however it's just code cleanup. It is not |
| 9 |
>>>> necessary for 2.1. |
| 10 |
>>>> |
| 11 |
>>>> I'm looking at the diff from pre9 and pre10, and I will backport any |
| 12 |
>>>> bugfixes if that makes everyone happy. |
| 13 |
>>>> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> In my cleanup of globals I took special care to maintain backward |
| 16 |
> compatibility. I have mr_bones_ and halcyon doing profiling to |
| 17 |
> track down the cause of the repoman performance issue. It should be |
| 18 |
> a simple fix when we find the problem. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Zac |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
>> As most people would expect you to, however there are no regression |
| 23 |
>> tests to prove you succeeded other than just having people test it. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Well, it's been the tree for 2 days now we'll surely get bug reports |
| 26 |
as soon as people run into these hypothetical issues (though I |
| 27 |
expect very few, if any regressions). I think the globals cleanup |
| 28 |
is worth having in 2.1 because it makes the code more maintainable. |
| 29 |
If you want to move back to a more stable revision, I'd suggest |
| 30 |
2.1_pre7 (before manifest2). I believe manifest2 introduced more |
| 31 |
potential for regressions than the globals cleanup did. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Zac |
| 34 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 35 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
iD8DBQFEVpLl/ejvha5XGaMRAjH4AJ9lezus6+SGKyg3KzKddwEE1ADwOwCfbAxv |
| 38 |
Rcduq3huWTa7Dlw5Nbb+r0c= |
| 39 |
=JXxC |
| 40 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives