On Tuesday 08 November 2005 19:42, Brian Harring wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 07:39:01PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > > If the changes are reviewed roughly in proportion to the number of hunks, > > we should be okay. At minimum, we should at least see how .54 turns out > > as there will be a few major changes in there already. I kind of expect > > .54 to do better than .53 actually. > > "roughly in proportion" ?
Lot of sparse changes should get more review, or something to that affect... > Reminds me... portage-commits. Alias right now sort of does the job, > but I want it to be an ml so we don't have to manage adding new people > in- what was the end result infra wise for that? The initial bug was to request an alias like gentoo-x86-commits. Not sure if that's available to the general public or not, but it's likely easiest to just maintain it manually for those that request it. > > Remember also that if we go the 2.1.x route, 2.0.x bugfixes can be pushed > > out quicker but the fixes all have to be committed twice. I for one am > > terrible at that. ;) > > That's why we're using svn, and why merge rules. ;) http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.0/ch04s03.html This has given me an idea of what you are talking about but, by the sounds of it, it still won't be a walk in the park. I guess if we only merge changes from the stable branch into trunk whenever a release is made from stable it shouln't be to hard to keep track of though. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
