On Mon, 16 May 2016 12:20:00 -0700 Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 03/14/2016 11:36 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:26:23 +0100 > > Alexander Berntsen <berna...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> Hash: SHA512 > > > >> I can't say much more than "ACK, probably makes sense" really. But > >> please test this *a lot* before merging it. > > > > > > I ack as well, the code looks good. I don't know enough about to be > > able to critique it in detail ;). But it does look decent and the > > idea of what it is doing sounds good. > > > > > >> Regarding the merging of this patch, and th egencache patch that > >> has already been released: I thought we agreed that .29 should be > >> *only* the repoman merger, and then bug fixes go into a .30 where > >> we try to get a stable release with the new repoman. Why was > >> egencache merged anyway? Should we not merge repoman to stable > >> ASAP before doing anything else? That would make .29 easier. > >> - -- > >> Alexander > >> berna...@gentoo.org > >> https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander > > > > With a .29 release coming out very soon after the the .28, the .28 > > would not get much more testing for the stabilization. If only the > > repoman code was changed, it makes it easier to know that any bugs > > submitted for .29 that re not repoman specific, apply to .28 as > > well. But more that if no non-repoman bugs were filed, then that > > clears .28 for stabilization. > > Can we merge this now? Feedback from the user who reported the issue > is very positive: > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=576786#c7 Alexander, with 2.3.0_rc1-r1 released, I think we can re-open portage code for more patches before the official 2.3.0 release. We now know the split install is working, it only had the one portage bug from the split. -- Brian Dolbec <dolsen>
