Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > > Sorry, to be clear the conclusion I was hoping to draw is that one has 2 > > repos instead of 1. > > > > 1) Rolling. > > 2) Stable. > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On pon, 2017-07-31 at 10:52 -0400, Alec Warner wrote: > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Andreas K. Huettel < > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > > > Sorry, to be clear the conclusion I was hoping to draw is that one has 2 > repos instead of 1. > > 1) Rolling. > 2) Stable. > > Rolling is typical ~arch Gentoo. People in rolling can do whatever they > want; they can't

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 12:56:18 +1000 Sam Jorna wrote: > > Sorry, I thought this thread was about whether to keep or discontinue > the separation between stable and testing branches. Yes and it was others that said lack of stable would effect enterprise/professional usage. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Andreas K. Huettel < > dilfri...@gentoo.org> > > wrote: > >> > >> Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 10:43 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:59:25 +0200 > "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > > > Am Montag, 31. Juli 2017, 04:44:58 CEST schrieb William L. Thomson > > Jr.: > > > > > > How about no foundation. Not even a legal

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:59:25 +0200 "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > Am Montag, 31. Juli 2017, 04:44:58 CEST schrieb William L. Thomson > Jr.: > > > > How about no foundation. Not even a legal entity. No certifications > > from vendors, nor for employees. No one to hire for

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

Am Montag, 31. Juli 2017, 04:44:58 CEST schrieb William L. Thomson Jr.: > > How about no foundation. Not even a legal entity. No certifications > from vendors, nor for employees. No one to hire for official support. > There are so many things far beyond anything having to do with a stable > tree

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

It seems like there has been a lot of discussion here that indicates people are happy with the way it is. There seems to be differences in how packages are updated based on their purpose - desktop packages move very fast, a lot of server infrastructure moves more slowly. It seems like the "best"

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 10:44:58PM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:28:31 +1000 > Sam Jorna wrote: > > > > Wouldn't it make more sense to make Gentoo *more* attractive to run in > > corporate environments, rather than simply saying "We're not RHEL

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:28:31 +1000 Sam Jorna wrote: > > Wouldn't it make more sense to make Gentoo *more* attractive to run in > corporate environments, rather than simply saying "We're not RHEL so > why bother"? No disagreement. That has always been my interest. Though has

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

Hi, Sam Jorna writes: > Wouldn't it make more sense to make Gentoo *more* attractive to run in > corporate environments, rather than simply saying "We're not RHEL so why > bother"? > > People do use Gentoo in production environments, both personally and > professionally, even

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 03:59:36PM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 23:10:35 +1000 > "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote: > > > On 28 July 2017 8:44:20 PM AEST, "Andreas K. Huettel" > > wrote: > > > > >That's not feasible. It would kill

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Sat, 2017-07-29 at 19:41 +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > > why take away the stable choice? > > I think it is rather clear that stable keywords aren't going anywhere > for architectures like amd64. I suggest we drop all of the subthreads > on this topic and get back to other interesting thoughts

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:22:08 +0200 Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > Second, I believe a lot of the value in our stable tree comes *just* > from the requirement that stabilization is only requested after 30 > days without major bugs/changes in the unstable tree. Assuming there > are

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 12:44:20 +0200 Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge: > > > > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. > > > > I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable) > > carries with it

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

> why take away the stable choice? I think it is rather clear that stable keywords aren't going anywhere for architectures like amd64. I suggest we drop all of the subthreads on this topic and get back to other interesting thoughts (which may include dropping stable for some other arches of

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

Am Freitag, 28. Juli 2017, 23:12:26 CEST schrieb A. Wilcox: > > At least I have a good reason to unsubscribe now. > > > Farewell, > --arw > Please don't take William as a typical Gentoo developer. He isn't. -- Andreas K. Hüttel dilfri...@gentoo.org Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl,

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:12:52 -0500 Denis Dupeyron wrote: > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Sergei Trofimovich > wrote: > > > TL;DR;TL;DR: > > > [...] > > Here's a data point you may, or may not, find relevant. in 16 years of > using Gentoo exclusively, the only one time I

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On 07/28/2017 12:44 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Andreas K. Huettel > > wrote: > > Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge: > > > > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Andreas K. Huettel > wrote: >> >> Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge: >> > >> > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:12:26 -0500 "A. Wilcox" wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 28/07/17 15:10, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > Gentoo is as stable as YOU make it > > And by "YOU", that would be the people writing ebuilds and

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 07:03:25PM -0500, Denis Dupeyron wrote: > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > When in the last 16 years was this 2 year period of running stable? > > The general state of QA has varied quite a bit over that time. > > > > I would

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Fri, 2017-07-28 at 15:59 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 23:10:35 +1000 > "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote: > > > On 28 July 2017 8:44:20 PM AEST, "Andreas K. Huettel" > > wrote: > > > > > That's not feasible. It would kill off

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 28/07/17 15:10, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > Gentoo is as stable as YOU make it And by "YOU", that would be the people writing ebuilds and committing them without test suites or integration testing of any kind. The devs who yell and

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

Gentoo is as stable as YOU make it I have run Gentoo exclusively as well for 14+ years, since ~2003. While my production servers are all mostly stable, none are 100%. All production systems have some ~arch packages, usually mine. Development network and desktops/laptops have always been

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 23:10:35 +1000 "Sam Jorna (wraeth)" wrote: > On 28 July 2017 8:44:20 PM AEST, "Andreas K. Huettel" > wrote: > > >That's not feasible. It would kill off any semi-professional or > >professional > >Gentoo use, where a minimum of

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge: > > > > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. > > > > I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable)

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On 28 July 2017 8:44:20 PM AEST, "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: >Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge: >> >> I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. >> >> I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable)

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On 2017-07-28 12:43, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >> I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable) >> carries with it an unneccessary cost. > That's not feasible. It would kill off any semi-professional or > professional Gentoo use, where a minimum of stability is required. This.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge: > > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. > > I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable) > carries with it an unneccessary cost. > That's not feasible. It would kill off any

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > When in the last 16 years was this 2 year period of running stable? > The general state of QA has varied quite a bit over that time. > I would say 3 or 4 years ago, roughly. > running unstable systemd has been Running

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Denis Dupeyron wrote: > > Here's a data point you may, or may not, find relevant. in 16 years of using > Gentoo exclusively, the only one time I used stable on one machine for about > 2 years it ended up being much more of a pain than unstable.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > TL;DR;TL;DR: > [...] Here's a data point you may, or may not, find relevant. in 16 years of using Gentoo exclusively, the only one time I used stable on one machine for about 2 years it ended up being much more of a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > I feel like this is going towards 'anybody can do keywording / > stabilization'. I'd rather not go this route right now, and just let > arch teams recruit people as they see fit. > I think this depends on the arch team.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

Hi, Before I start replying to specific bits, I think it would be reasonable to outline the flow of a keywording/stabilization bug. I would split it into 4 steps: S1. Someone (anyone) files a bug requesting it. S2. Someone (maintainer or OP) prepares a complete list of packages (including

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

El mar, 25-07-2017 a las 15:19 +0200, Michał Górny escribió: > On wto, 2017-07-25 at 14:15 +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > El mar, 25-07-2017 a las 13:54 +0200, Michał Górny escribió: > > > Dnia 25 lipca 2017 11:18:21 CEST, Pacho Ramos > > > napisał(a): > > > > El mar, 25-07-2017

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On wto, 2017-07-25 at 14:15 +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El mar, 25-07-2017 a las 13:54 +0200, Michał Górny escribió: > > Dnia 25 lipca 2017 11:18:21 CEST, Pacho Ramos napisał(a): > > > El mar, 25-07-2017 a las 08:18 +0200, Hans de Graaff escribió: > > > > On Mon, 2017-07-24 at

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

El mar, 25-07-2017 a las 13:54 +0200, Michał Górny escribió: > Dnia 25 lipca 2017 11:18:21 CEST, Pacho Ramos napisał(a): > > El mar, 25-07-2017 a las 08:18 +0200, Hans de Graaff escribió: > > > On Mon, 2017-07-24 at 23:22 +, Peter Stuge wrote: > > > > > > > > I hold a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

Dnia 25 lipca 2017 11:18:21 CEST, Pacho Ramos napisał(a): >El mar, 25-07-2017 a las 08:18 +0200, Hans de Graaff escribió: >> On Mon, 2017-07-24 at 23:22 +, Peter Stuge wrote: >> > >> > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove >stable. >> > >> > [snip]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Hans de Graaff wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-07-24 at 23:22 +, Peter Stuge wrote: > > > More troubleshooting and fixing "hard" problems, less routine work. > > Except that some of that routine work is actually what I enjoy doing in > Gentoo. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

El mar, 25-07-2017 a las 08:18 +0200, Hans de Graaff escribió: > On Mon, 2017-07-24 at 23:22 +, Peter Stuge wrote: > > > > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. > > > > [snip] > > > > I consider dev time a precious resource. > > If we were to drop stable I

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 23:22:44 + Peter Stuge wrote: > Thank you for working on this. > > Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > > Can this proposal make a difference and make gentoo better and > > easier to work with? > > > > Does it try to attack the right thing? > > > > Does it

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > TL;DR;TL;DR: > > > This email seeks for one step towards less toil tied to gentoo's > keywording/stabilization process. I've CCed a few groups who > might be interested in making this area better: > > -

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Mon, 2017-07-24 at 23:22 +, Peter Stuge wrote: > > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. > > [snip] > > I consider dev time a precious resource. If we were to drop stable I would have to start maintaining my own stable lists to determine what would be

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: > > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. > > I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable) > carries with it an unneccessary cost. > The question is whether devs would start

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

Thank you for working on this. Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > Can this proposal make a difference and make gentoo better and > easier to work with? > > Does it try to attack the right thing? > > Does it completely miss the point? I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts?

TL;DR;TL;DR: This email seeks for one step towards less toil tied to gentoo's keywording/stabilization process. I've CCed a few groups who might be interested in making this area better: - gentoo-dev@ as it affects most devs (and non-devs!) - wg-stable@ as it overlaps quite a bit