On 3 Oct 2007, at 05:37, Rainer Müller wrote:
Anders F Björklund wrote:
For MacPorts 1.6.0,
I think you should split the "dports" trunk in two,
"trunk" and "release", just as done with the "base".
There is just too much port breakage with running the
latest developer version on the user machines, IMHO.
That sounds like a good idea. But who decides at which time we merge
revisions from unstable to stable? And do we have enough resources (I
mean: contributors and testers) to find all problems? Would this
really
help to find problems at all?
If we had a build farm, the farm could catch every build error, so
that the only ports in the "stable" tree would have runtime errors.
A good reason is, we could adopt new features from base in unstable
first and merge them to stable once a new base gets released. For
example, removing of "cd" from all ports. Or introduction of
compiler.*.
But for this we need some place to track those changes and mark
them for
a later merge. Where should we store which revisions are to be
merged to
stable? And who will do the merging?
It sounds great, but are we ready to manage more than one ports tree?
If we could automate it?
Rainer
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
Randall Wood
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://shyramblings.blogspot.com
"The rules are simple: The ball is round. The game lasts 90 minutes.
All the
rest is just philosophy."
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
