-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Marius Mauch wrote: > On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 19:11:49 -0700 > Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The manifest code doesn't have very many use cases so I'd expect that >> we would have hit most major problems by now (even with a small >> sample). Any necessary changes are likely to be small patches. As >> an alternative, we can cut the 2.1 branch at the point before >> manifest2 was merged (2.1_pre7, essentially). > > Releasing 2.1 without manifest2 is a no go, it would significantly > delay the deployment and transition.I'm not requesting to delay 2.1 > for another few months, just one more pre release so people get a > chance to test it for one or two weeks.
Well, 2 weeks isn't so bad. I'm just annoyed by the length of this release cycle and would prefer shorter release cycles in the future. >>> The remaining feature I'd like to get into 2.1 is the >>> tree-format-check issue, but that could probably be slipped in in >>> the rc phase (don't really like that idea, but it's an option). >> I don't want to rush the development of new features such as >> manifest2 or the tree-format-check. We have a 2.1 branch that, in >> it's current state (2.1_pre7-r4, for example), provides significant >> benefits over the 2.0.x branch. By delaying 2.1's release for the >> addition of _new_ features, we run the risk of the release being >> delayed indefinitely by "just one more feature" syndrome. >> Personally, I'd rather have shorter release periods so that "just one >> more feature" syndrome becomes less of an issue. > > Ehm, this is not "just one more feature", both manifest2 and > the tree-format-check are things to improve forward compability (or for > the latter even enable forward compability at all), so delaying them > will hinder future development, not only for us. This kind of thing will be less of a problem if we shorten the period of the release cycle. If we shorted it to 2 months or so, then it won't matter much when something gets bumped to the next cycle. > Also this isn't exactly news to you all as I sent my intentions already > a while ago, and last I asked you all agreed with them, so is there any > reason to rush this now? Like I've said above, I'm annoyed by the length of this release cycle. The gap between 2.0.x and 2.1 has grown so large that a 2.0.55 release seems (in my mind) like beating a dead horse. The way I see it, a shorter release cycle is needed so that bug fixes are released in _stable_ versions sooner. Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFENgiD/ejvha5XGaMRAu2qAKDst/u+JAPsKzthJp519I/01h3/WwCeO3RP jxoDVyn0MeeeMY+6qxq7QQY= =CdiB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
