On Saturday 29 August 2009 05:42:45 Duncan wrote: > Mike Frysinger posted on Sat, 29 Aug 2009 02:56:33 -0400 as excerpted: > > On Friday 28 August 2009 20:05:12 Alex Alexander wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 00:23, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> > On Friday 28 August 2009 16:27:18 Sebastian Pipping wrote: > >> >> Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> >> > 10.0 is retarded > >> >> > >> >> How would you like the problem to be addressed? > >> > > >> > we already have a simple logical version system. 2009.0 is the next > >> > step. > >> > >> Years do not make a good versioning scheme, if one release gets out > >> late you're automatically considered outdated by users. > > > > then help the release team to get more tested releases, otherwise > > reality is we are releasing out of date install media > > But as we all know, releases != profiles. If there's no reason to update > the profiles besides the fact that the name incorporates a year, and they > look out of date, why do so? > > For that reason, getting away from year for the profiles is a reasonable > idea, now that Gentoo seems to be mature enough that we don't need a new > profile multiple times a year. > > OTOH, having the year in there, as long as people don't get fixated on > it, can be useful as an indication of when the profile was born, just not > necessarily that it's outdated. If it weren't for the outdated > appearance, therefore, year would be fine.
except that profiles and releases have always been tied (for good reason). profile default changes are made as part of the release process. if we want to change a USE flag default, we dont (shouldnt) be doing it to live profiles. it is part of the natural version bumping. releng has always been managing new profiles since we started the process years ago and there's no reason to change now. > Whatever, bikeshedding from my perspective, and this one I don't /care/ > what the color/name is. But since we already have 10.0 profiles in-tree, > just run with them, as it's more work to worry about changing them now, > than it's worth. (And, I might add, I'm glad they're in, as the /last/ > thing we need is to be stalemated debating it for a year or two, as it > /is/ bikeshedding.) date based profiles isnt bikeshedding, it's logical. and if your only complaint is that it doesnt matter, then there is absolutely no reason to go changing from what we've been doing for years with no complaints. picking random numbers out of your ass (like 10.0) is confusing. -mike
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.