| 1 |
I actually don't see this as an either-or scenario. Having a separate |
| 2 |
server portage tree can also assist in QA as below. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
I would hope that most of us that run gentoo on more than a couple |
| 5 |
servers, do our own testing. I have a build server that compiles |
| 6 |
packages for installation. Thus I can test the function of apps on that |
| 7 |
or a dev server. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
The server tree would be very helpful to me if it had production and |
| 10 |
development packages. The production ebuilds would be the currently |
| 11 |
released versions, and development ebuilds would be the "in waiting" |
| 12 |
ebuilds for the next quarterly release. This way we can test the |
| 13 |
function of the dev ebuilds on our own without sending them to our |
| 14 |
production servers. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
jbw |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
P.S. This means that my vote would be for (2). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> All -- |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I'd like to poll the group to get your input on a question that has come up |
| 25 |
> recently. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> There are a number of areas where Gentoo Linux could stand improvement -- |
| 28 |
> we all know this. Two examples being discussed now are a) improved QA for |
| 29 |
> the portage tree and b) the fact that the portage tree is very fluid and |
| 30 |
> dynamic, which makes it more difficult to use in enterprise environments. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> If you were given the choice between: |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> 1) A more robust QA process for the main portage tree or |
| 35 |
> 2) A seperate 'server' portage tree that offered: |
| 36 |
> * only updated quarterly |
| 37 |
> * security and major bug-fixes off-cycle, but no other changes to the |
| 38 |
> tree |
| 39 |
> * guaranteed minimum life of all ebuilds in the tree |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> Which would you find more valuable and why? |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> --kurt |
Archives