On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Brian Dolbec <dol...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 06:59:19 -0500 > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> Actually, what is less clear to me is how portage versioning actually >> works, or if we attach any meaning to the version numbers at all. >> Both the stable and unstable series are on 2.2.x, but there are no >> versions in the tree between 2.2.20 and 2.2.23. >> > > So, we have 2 user groups, stable and unstable. > > Current stable is 2.2.20.1 > current unstable is 2.2.25 <==just released
So, my first point was that the version numbering seems to have no relationship to what is stable and unstable. It isn't really meant as a big complaint, but it just suggests a lack of a release strategy. > > With 2.2.4 becoming stable, why would we keep the buggy ~ 2.2.3 in the > tree taking up space? We already established that ~ users will have > migrated away from it. > Sure, and my comment wasn't really directed at portage in particular, though it is a fair reply because I did use it as an example. Portage is a bit unique in that it has no upstream QA process - the QA is being done entirely within Gentoo. For packages other than portage there should be less reason to drop versions, since they probably wouldn't have been released if they were unsuitable to release. > >> That tends >> to result in a situation where if you follow ~arch you end up having >> to accept lots of updates because none of the versions stay in the >> tree long enough to actually get stabilized. > > that happens for some pkgs, if it happens too much for you, update less > often. What do you mean by "update less often?" Are you suggesting not running emerge --sync? Not wanting to follow every ~arch version of a package whose stable version has a problem isn't the same as not wanting to update your entire tree, and there is no reason to force users to choose between only those choices. > >> Unless a ~arch package >> version is so broken that it could never be stabilized it is probably >> better to leave them there so that it is easier for users to drop back >> from ~arch to stable without downgrading. >> > > Rich, please re-read your above statements until you see the total > failure in your logic. It is a bit ironic that you chose this as the part to quote when adding a snide remark. My whole point was that we shouldn't NEEDLESSLY drop old versions, You seemed to have taken this as a complaint about dropping old versions when there is a valid reason for doing so. Your tone here is anything but helpful. My intent was really to contribute to the discussion constructively and point out a pain point for people running mixed-keywords. Perhaps I didn't explain my point as well as I could have. When somebody is saying something that doesn't seem sensible to you, it is usually better to assume that they just didn't make their point well than to assume that they don't have anything worth saying. -- Rich
