Zac Medico wrote:
Well, it's been the tree for 2 days now we'll surely get bug reports
as soon as people run into these hypothetical issues (though I
expect very few, if any regressions). I think the globals cleanup
is worth having in 2.1 because it makes the code more maintainable.
Ack.
Per some discussion on IRC, I am bring stablizing 2.1 at the pre9 or
pre10 branch to the table. Reasons for doing so include:
2006.1 - They say if 2.1 is to be in 2006.1, mid-july
Xorg Modular - They cannot stable xorg modular until 2.1 is stable
FreeBSD - Their entire port depends on features
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alec Warner wrote:
Marius Mauch wrote:
Alec Warner schrieb:
Why Branch at 2.1_pre9?
Manifest2 is already in the tree and needs refinement. Branching at
pre7 is also a canidate, but i would rather press for keeping manifest2
in the tree and
Zac Medico wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alec Warner wrote:
Marius Mauch wrote:
Alec Warner schrieb:
Why Branch at 2.1_pre9?
Manifest2 is already in the tree and needs refinement. Branching at
pre7 is also a canidate, but i would rather press for keeping manifest2
in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alec Warner wrote:
Zmedico did a lot of things with usage of global variables, however I
think that getting all that tested ( especially in scripts that we don't
keep track of ) is detremental to getting portage stable. I agree that
it's an
