| 1 |
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 03:36:58PM -0500, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 2 |
> All -- |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I'd like to poll the group to get your input on a question that has come up |
| 5 |
> recently. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> There are a number of areas where Gentoo Linux could stand improvement -- |
| 8 |
> we all know this. Two examples being discussed now are a) improved QA for |
| 9 |
> the portage tree and b) the fact that the portage tree is very fluid and |
| 10 |
> dynamic, which makes it more difficult to use in enterprise environments. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> If you were given the choice between: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> 1) A more robust QA process for the main portage tree or |
| 15 |
> 2) A seperate 'server' portage tree that offered: |
| 16 |
> * only updated quarterly |
| 17 |
> * security and major bug-fixes off-cycle, but no other changes to the |
| 18 |
> tree |
| 19 |
> * guaranteed minimum life of all ebuilds in the tree |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Which would you find more valuable and why? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
#2. Reason: we went with Debian because it had a stable branch while gentoo didn't (stable being more like 2 than the current 'x86' tree). We probably would've picked gentoo if it had had a stable branch like #2 above. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
adam |
Archives