Chris Gianelloni wrote: >> Now, how can we do this? Could we start changing the profiles right now? > > Considering we already have a 2.0.0 ebuild, we do the following: > > - Mask >=2.0.0-r9 (this allows for security bumps, if necessary, number > can be adjusted) > - Copy 2.0.0 to 2.0.0-r9 > - When we make a new 2007.1 profile, don't mask >=2.0.0-r9 > - Stable 2.0.0-r9 in the 2007.1 snapshot and mark it stable in the tree > with the release > - ??? > - Profit! > >> Should this be brought to the next council meeting? > > Is that really necessary? What can the Council do that we cannot agree > upon here as civil adults? I think we can agree to do this ourselves. > I can definitely agree to it from a Release Engineering standpoint. It > would work quite well and is beneficial to our users. > ++
>> Chris, I could write a small paragraph for whatever GWN explaining what >> stable and unstable users will have to do if you want. > > Sure. However, if we did follow my draft plan above, there would be no > need. Users running ~arch have probably hit this already by now, so I > don't think we would be informing too many people. That being said, it > would make a cool article. Even if just to show that, yes, we really do > care for our users and think about ways to reduce the impact on their > systems. > Personally I found the outline above about how such a tree-wide change is implemented to be fascinating technically, so I think an article is a great idea, especially if that could be fleshed out to cover metadata format changes and the like. I have no idea exactly what other types of changes would require such a move, but I'd love to read about them. A 90% revdep-rebuild would definitely tempt me to reinstall tho :) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
