1 |
Stewart Honsberger wrote: |
2 |
> Eric Sammer wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> The "stable" or "frozen" tree effort was not exactly abandoned so much |
5 |
>> as placed on a back burner to under go further research. There were |
6 |
>> some concerns from some of the devs as to how much additional work |
7 |
>> would be placed on them and their archs (some of the non-x86 archs |
8 |
>> have few developers and certainly don't need extra work piled on). |
9 |
>> Overall, there were a number of issues that needed to be worked out |
10 |
>> prior to any kind of attempt at starting such a project (officially). |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> The original GLEP by Kurt Lieber remains up for review at |
13 |
>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0019.html for those who are |
14 |
>> interested. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> |
17 |
> I came up with an idea while driving some time last week, so naturally I |
18 |
> forgot to write it down next time I pulled over. :P |
19 |
> |
20 |
> What if, instead of a stable tree, we introduce a new KEYWORDS modifier? |
21 |
> Currently we have -arch, ~arch, and plain 'ol arch. What if we added |
22 |
> "+arch" to mean "Tested stable for production deployment." and impose a |
23 |
> set of guidelines regarding how long such an ebuild should remain |
24 |
> available / in the tree. Server systems could continue using the "main" |
25 |
> tree and set ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to +arch to only receive the most tested |
26 |
> stable applications. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> No tree duplication, multiple CVS ./ rsync respositories, and such a |
29 |
> small change I'd bet it could be implemeneted in minutes / hours rather |
30 |
> than days / weeks. |
31 |
|
32 |
This idea was long debated over when this issue was originally brought up 6 or so months |
33 |
back. I can't remember what came of it, though. |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
Andrew Gaffney |
37 |
Network Administrator |
38 |
Skyline Aeronautics, LLC. |
39 |
636-357-1548 |