Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-2.1 and gentoolkit-0.2.2

2006-06-01 Thread Paul Varner 
On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 18:20 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
 Things can be fast tracked if it's better for the overall health of the 
 tree. The 30 thing is just a general guideline and more so before we 
 had any arch teams/ATs/etc... Now that we have arch teams the QA/stable 
 process has been highly improved.
 
 On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 14:49 -0500, Paul Varner wrote:
  If portage-2.1 is requested to be marked stable before then, we need to
  also make the same request for gentoolkit, so that we don't break it.

I don't think that we need to fast track marking gentoolkit-0.2.2 stable
at this point. However, as my last paragraph states, if portage-2.1 is
going to go stable before then, we should then fast track gentoolkit.

Regards,
Paul
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-portage-dev] portage-2.1 and gentoolkit-0.2.2

2006-05-31 Thread Paul Varner 
Just a reminder that due to the changes in portage-2.1, that it breaks
gentoolkit-0.2.1 which is the current stable version.  I have placed
gentoolkit-0.2.2 in the tree which works with portage-2.1 and opened bug
#135068 http://bugs.gentoo.org/135068

I have not added the arch teams to the bug since it has obviously not
been in the tree for thirty days.  I will add the arch teams at that
time.

If portage-2.1 is requested to be marked stable before then, we need to
also make the same request for gentoolkit, so that we don't break it.

Regards,
Paul
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list