On Tuesday 06 December 2005 21:37, Alec Warner wrote: > Jason Stubbs wrote: > > On Tuesday 06 December 2005 11:17, Ned Ludd wrote: > > > On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 23:06 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > > > > Okay, new suggestion. > > > > > > > > Postpone the cache rewrite from above. Have only the minimal mods > > > > necessary to fix the PORT_LOGDIR/tee bug. Include the other two as is. > > > > That would be 2.0.54 as per the attached patch. Get that out soon and > > > > get trunk out masked at around the same time. As soon as 2.0.54 goes > > > > stable put trunk into ~arch. However, instead of ~arch meaning > > > > "regression fixes only" we could just limit it to "minor changes only" > > > > (ie. no big refactorings, rewrites or similar high risk changes) until > > > > it is time to stable it. > > > > > > I think it would be wise to reconsider the cache fixes. I know you have > > > been away from irc for a while now and have missed the daily events, > > > but most of the people we have interacted with are expecting the cache > > > updates in .54 (alot of people complaining about the hanging at 50%) > > > > Call me wrong, but I'm feeling that the constant pulling and pushing on > > IRC causes many misjudgements. > > No I agree with you here, I just wanted reasoning because now I have > this ML thread to refer people to :p
Of course, there's enough pushing and pulling on the ML here to provide food for thought. :) Ok, I've come to a conclusion and that conclusion is: We have way too much indecisiveness. I'm not sure if that's my fault or not - am I meant to be decisive? My guess is that if I were to seriously propose that question there'd be a lot of indecision about it. ;) So I'm going to make a decision and offer until Friday (Saturday in my time) for opposers to solidify and state any opposition. If there's no solid opposition, Saturday I will put current trunk into ~arch as 2.1_beta20051210. I will also post on the 2.0.53 bug that fixes are available for the ldconfig bug and the tee bug stating that we'd like to also add trunk's cache subsystem to 2.0.54 and that dependening on the next council meeting(?) the SHA1 enabling as well. Doing it this way will make the ~arch users happy straight away. If we look at it as our responsibility to get fixes and new functionality into ~arch then our jobs done and we can get back to business. As for stable users? If arch teams are willing to selectively choose what fixes they want backported to stable (when they're not prepared to move the ~arch version into stable) things will go much smoother. Of course, it would still be our responsibility to get those things backported and assert some confidence that it is working. However, once the requested fixes are backported all that needs to be done is put out the patched stable version with ~arch keywords and then leave it up to the arch teams again. Except for the slight extra burden on (which I believe many would actually find to be a blessing), it should be a win-win situation. Cross-posting to -dev@ so that some arch people can comment. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
