On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Alec Warner <anta...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > Sorry, to be clear the conclusion I was hoping to draw is that one has 2 > repos instead of 1. > > 1) Rolling. > 2) Stable. > > Rolling is typical ~arch Gentoo. People in rolling can do whatever they > want; they can't affect stable at all. > > Stable is an entirely separate repo, a fork, where CPVs are pulled from > Rolling into Stable. If Stable wants to keep a gnarly old version of some > package around; great! But the rolling people don't have to care. >
This seems like it would be fairly painful to maintain. You'd need to constantly pull in new packages, and prune out old ones. It would duplicate many of the functions maintainers already do. I doubt anybody would go to the trouble to make this happen. > > Nothing stops Gentoo (the organization / community) from housing the above > scheme in one organization. I mean, nothing but political will right? :) > That, and the fact that it will take a ton of effort to maintain. Most likely if the tree is split stable will just be abandoned. Anybody who is unsatisfied with the unstable tree would just quit entirely, making their unstable packages unmaintained as well. You need a critical mass to maintain a distro. IMO having the stable tree does not add all that much work for those who don't care about it, but it gets us quite a few contributors. Maybe we can afford to lose them, or maybe enough will just move to unstable. I'm not sure it is easy to predict what the outcome of removing stable will be. I'm all for looking for ways to make stable less of a burden on those who aren't interested in it. As far as I can tell the main one is not being able to remove old packages without getting reverse deps keyworded. I think that all this would take is a script that would drop the stable keywords on the reverse deps, which the council has basically already approved (after a waiting period). -- Rich
