Robert Collins wrote: > On Sat, 2003-03-15 at 23:51, Max Bowsher wrote: >> Robert Collins wrote: >>> On Sat, 2003-03-15 at 23:38, Max Bowsher wrote: >>> >>>> I've prepared a list of changes from 2.249.2.10 to 2.332. (I took >>>> the ChangeLog, and stripped everything that was already on the >>>> branch) >>>> It's long! >>>> >>>> I was just about to "make snapshot" when your cvs commit notice >>>> arrived. I'll redo from 2.333. >>> >>> Thanks. I'll branch CVS tomorrow sometime and generate an RC. >> >> Is there any need to create a branch until there is a non-bugfix >> change ready for application? > > There are non-bugfix changes all-but ready. branching is easy, and it > makes the RC version numbers distinctive. > >> Holding off till then reduces merge work, and doesn't hold up >> development at all if we create the branch promptly when a >> non-bugfix does how up. > > Merging is trivial. cvs diff > patchforhead before commiting a RC > bugfix, and then patch -p0 in HEAD followed by cvs ci.
OK. >>>> MD5summing takes *too long*! >>>> >>>> I've been running with it turned off in the source since I can >>>> remember! >>> >>> Well, it's better than nothing :}. >> >> No, seriously, I believe this issue is a release blocker. > > I throw it open for review then. Personally, with a 110Mb local cache, > md5 checking took 18 seconds - from a reboot, so the disk cache was > empty. Too long, IMO. And my cache is bigger. > I will *consider* patches to change this. The requirement is: > * don't show packages for local install that aren't available. > * corrupt package files aren't available. > > Now, perhaps we should only check the md5's immediately before > install, I think this will be less irritating. I'll see what I can do. > and with the recent changes to not uninstall replacements with corrupt > packages, this is a feasible change. > > Still, I strongly favour reliability over speed in this case. Max.
