On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 08:41:27 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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? It isn't about expectations. I just think it's bad engineering to use the same version prefix for two rather different codebases. As for your concerns about confused users, I don't share them. 90% will simply ignore it, 5% will do a quick search and find something like my 2.1 thread in the forums, and the remaining 5% either know already the situation or will draw their own conclusions. After all, wasn't engineering the reason why we're going to increase the minor? > 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. Ok, but it still doesn't really have anything to do with arch teams, "just" general QA. Also I didn't mean to criticize you, just stating that this option exists. > 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. Ehm, what's the point of having .54 in ~arch after trunk is in ~arch? You won't get much testing that way as ~arch users would already use trunk and stable users likely won't know about .54 ... (typical visibility problem) Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
