Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Wednesday 07 December 2005 01:01, Marius Mauch wrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 23:19:38 +0900
Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If there's no solid opposition, Saturday I will put current trunk into
~arch as 2.1_beta20051210.
Well, I've already stated several times that IMO using a 2.1 branch is
wrong (use 2.2 instead), but if I'm overvoted, so it shall be.
As Brian stated, 2.2 being a version higher than 2.1 will have all the same
expectations placed on it. From what I can see, <1% of users know anything
about 2.1 so >99% would be wondering why there was a jump from 2.0 to 2.2.
Do you have anything against 2.1 other than fearing that people will expect
more from it than it will turn out to be?
As for stable users? If arch teams are willing to selectively choose
what fixes they want backported to stable (when they're not prepared
to move the ~arch version into stable) things will go much smoother.
Of course, it would still be our responsibility to get those things
backported and assert some confidence that it is working. However,
once the requested fixes are backported all that needs to be done is
put out the patched stable version with ~arch keywords and then leave
it up to the arch teams again. Except for the slight extra burden on
(which I believe many would actually find to be a blessing), it
should be a win-win situation.
Just in case you forgot and also for general reference, when I asked
the arch teams about the portage keywording policy a few months ago
(wether we should stable even without testing on all archs or to
delegate that to arch teams) everyone seemed to be happy with the old
policy, at least nobody voted for a change. As portage doesn't really
have any arch specific code and a rather short dep list IMO it also
doesn't yield any real benefit other than more people testing it (which
is of course always a good thing).
Really, the bottom line is that regardless of what the response was when you
asked about portage keywording, if all the arch teams had confidence in what
we thought 2.0.53 would have been stable a long time ago. On the surface the
only benefit is extra testing (which has already payed off) but it also
allows others to take an active hand in the quality of portage as well as
strengthens the communication channels. It's these auxillary benefits as well
as the benefit of being able to focus on trunk more (which will yield faster
rollout of features) that make me think it is the best way to go.
On Wednesday 07 December 2005 01:21, Alec Warner wrote:
I spoke with Brian today ( no clue if he will be sending mail or not )
but he stressed that he would like the cache rewrite in ~arch.
Any reason why you're speaking on his behalf?
From what I understood he was busy/moving IRL and didn't have time to
catch up on his mail, so I told him I would send something expressing
what he said when we spoke on IRC; he didn't explicitly tell me to do
so, but I told him I was going to.
I would prefer that it be in .54, the code itself is old, 6+ months. It is
a straight backport from the 2.1 branch (the dead one) and the interface
code to make it fit with 2.0 is small compared to the patch size ( Brian
estimated 100-150 lines ).
These are all reasons that I myself have given already.
I don't have a problem with releasing 2 ebuilds, one with the patch and one
without ( or a use flag ) although the question that raises is will the
cache rewrite actually end up in .54 final, or will it be put off :)
This, I do have a problem with. You're essentially suggesting that three lines
be maintained rather than the current two.
I can't tell if you followed what I said in my last email so I'll reiterate.
Trunk will go into ~arch on Saturday. 2.0.54 will go out (also in ~arch) two
weeks after that with the two fixes and include the cache rewrite based on
the opinion of a broad range of users (rather than just the noise makers).
SHA1 will of course also go in based on how it is voted.
Bah, for some reason I kept thinking that the rewrite wasn't in trunk,
but as I look in svn now I see it there; my apologies :/
The detailed explanation looks good to me ;)
-Alec Warner (Antarus)
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
