On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 23:19:38 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. Well, I've already stated several times that IMO using a 2.1 branch is wrong (use 2.2 instead), but if I'm overvoted, so it shall be. As for the cache rewrite in 2.0.54, I don't really prefer one way or the other, from an engineering POV it is 2.2 material, but if it is a major improvement and well tested it can also be in .54 (just in case my previous mail was misunderstood). > 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. Just in case you forgot and also for general reference, when I asked the arch teams about the portage keywording policy a few months ago (wether we should stable even without testing on all archs or to delegate that to arch teams) everyone seemed to be happy with the old policy, at least nobody voted for a change. As portage doesn't really have any arch specific code and a rather short dep list IMO it also doesn't yield any real benefit other than more people testing it (which is of course always a good thing). Marius -- 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
