OK, a lot of good suggestions and feedback has been offered so far.  Thanks
to everyone who has participated.

There are two main issues that I want to focus on as possible alternatives
for implementing this GLEP.

1)  Tarballs for main tree, rsync for security/bugfixes.

Several folks have indicated that they feel quarterly updates are too
frequent.  I personally feel that semi-annual or annual updates are too
infrequent and put us at risk of contracting Debian Stable-itis.

One alternative I thought of (inspired by a suggestion from Spider) was to
create and distribute each quarterly release as a tbz2 and then have a
single rsync tree that only contains security updates and bugfixes.  These
off-cycle changes would, as Spider suggested, be made available via an
overlay to avoid corrupting the original tree.

The main disadvantages I can see with this are:

* Requires portage support to work. (or users will have to do a lot  
  of manual syncing)  The original GLEP requires no changes to portage.
* Could cause problems if some of the security updates have newer deps that
  are otherwise not included in the stable tree.

I like the idea in principle, however, so I'm curious to hear other
people's thoughts as well as their ideas on how to solve the above
problems.

2) Using a variable in /etc/make.conf to define update frequencies.

I'm not going to summarize this post here because I'd end up leaving
something important out.  Please see Lisa's original post:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/15535/

(side note: I would suggest changing QUARTERLY to MONTHLY to provide more
granularity and control to our users)

I kind of like this idea, but I really do not like the fact that it doesn't
provide any provisions for ensuring ebuilds stay in the tree for a
pre-defined period of time.  I think this is a critical facet of the GLEP
in its current form.  If this feature could be included while still keeping
a variable-based update frequency as defined above (short of "expect
developers to keep track of it") then I think it might be a very viable
alternative.


So, thoughts, suggestions and comments on the above two alternatives?

--kurt

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to