1 |
I think option #2 is the best to be first implemeneted. In addition to |
2 |
this, perhaps some mechanism to see the major changes in packages, helping |
3 |
to prevent potential issues, would be prudent. I'm also a big fan of the 1 |
4 |
year security patches option that had been mentioned earlier. |
5 |
|
6 |
---------------------------------- |
7 |
Kirk Smith |
8 |
Systems Administrator |
9 |
the Illiji network |
10 |
http://www.illiji.net/ |
11 |
---------------------------------- |
12 |
|
13 |
> All -- |
14 |
> |
15 |
> I'd like to poll the group to get your input on a question that has come |
16 |
> up |
17 |
> recently. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> There are a number of areas where Gentoo Linux could stand improvement -- |
20 |
> we all know this. Two examples being discussed now are a) improved QA for |
21 |
> the portage tree and b) the fact that the portage tree is very fluid and |
22 |
> dynamic, which makes it more difficult to use in enterprise environments. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> If you were given the choice between: |
25 |
> |
26 |
> 1) A more robust QA process for the main portage tree or |
27 |
> 2) A seperate 'server' portage tree that offered: |
28 |
> * only updated quarterly |
29 |
> * security and major bug-fixes off-cycle, but no other changes to the |
30 |
> tree |
31 |
> * guaranteed minimum life of all ebuilds in the tree |
32 |
> |
33 |
> Which would you find more valuable and why? |
34 |
> |
35 |
> --kurt |