On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 02:29:14 -0600 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 11:54:11AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > > On Sunday 06 November 2005 06:09, Brian Harring wrote: > > > We've pretty much ignored the minor, and abused the micro for > > > both bug fixing and feature inclusion. Thoughts on using micro > > > for _strictly_ bug fixes, and macro for features? > > > > I suggested this before, but it didn't go down too well... > > Something I ixnayed/argued against? If so ignore me- I'm a dumb ass > (this you should know already) ;-) > > As stated below, the dead 2.1 release screws with things a bit- which > is about my only concern with fiddling with minor these days. > > > > Yes we'll run aground of the dead 2.1 release (not incredibly > > > happy about that), but I'd like to see if we can get bug fixes > > > out a bit quicker, with some semblence of a gurantee we're not > > > tagging in stuff an admin isn't going to care about. > > > > What sort of bug fixes are you looking to get out quicker? While > > the EAPI stuff drew out .53 a little longer than originally > > expected it was still only 30 days from first rc to final (assuming > > _rc7 is final). I can't really see the necessity for getting > > non-regression fixes out "quicker". At the moment, a lot of fixes > > go out all at once rather than in lots of small bumps. I doubt the > > overall speed would change very much. > > Question is how will it scale for non-bugfixes, disruptive changes > like cache backport, elog backporting, confcache, etc? What I'm > concerned about is what's going to occur with .5x when large changes > start sliding into it (or into a minor)- basically the territory > we're wandering into right now with cache/exec refactoring for .54. My 0.02 something: Stick with the current mess for 2.0.x, if it turns out we really need to push something out there are still options (like using a _p suffix or a fourth component). Never make a 2.1.x release (this version is "burned" already). Why this even if it's a mess? People are used to it already, adding a 2.x with x>0 could be interpreted as "the next major version" with use-depends and stuff, 2.1 is burned as stated above and currently it seems to work. Savior can and will reopen this discussion anyway. Marius PS: Didn't we just have this discussion some weeks ago? -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
