1 |
Zac Medico wrote: |
2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
3 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
4 |
> |
5 |
> Alec Warner wrote: |
6 |
>> Marius Mauch wrote: |
7 |
>>> Alec Warner schrieb: |
8 |
>>>> Why Branch at 2.1_pre9? |
9 |
>>>> Manifest2 is already in the tree and needs refinement. Branching at |
10 |
>>>> pre7 is also a canidate, but i would rather press for keeping manifest2 |
11 |
>>>> in the tree and fixing up it's code instead. |
12 |
>>> Why not pre10? |
13 |
>>> |
14 |
>> Because pre10 seems to introduce repoman problems that haven't been |
15 |
>> solved and I've like to break out the RC's soon. |
16 |
>> |
17 |
>> Zmedico did a lot of things with usage of global variables, however I |
18 |
>> think that getting all that tested ( especially in scripts that we don't |
19 |
>> keep track of ) is detremental to getting portage stable. I agree that |
20 |
>> it's an important step; however it's just code cleanup. It is not |
21 |
>> necessary for 2.1. |
22 |
>> |
23 |
>> I'm looking at the diff from pre9 and pre10, and I will backport any |
24 |
>> bugfixes if that makes everyone happy. |
25 |
>> |
26 |
> |
27 |
> In my cleanup of globals I took special care to maintain backward |
28 |
> compatibility. I have mr_bones_ and halcyon doing profiling to |
29 |
> track down the cause of the repoman performance issue. It should be |
30 |
> a simple fix when we find the problem. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> Zac |
33 |
|
34 |
As most people would expect you to, however there are no regression |
35 |
tests to prove you succeeded other than just having people test it. |
36 |
|
37 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
38 |
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) |
39 |
> |
40 |
> iD8DBQFEVopv/ejvha5XGaMRAhrRAJ9dReE2iwweLKxVo9Dfrju31TbWWQCg6BE1 |
41 |
> 7uPAXHMr/2zjezpMSTM1lrY= |
42 |
> =RX9M |
43 |
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
44 |
|
45 |
-- |
46 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |