Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: 2009.0 profiles
On Friday 11 September 2009 19:48:03 George Prowse wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: ... Why not tie the the thing that makes Gentoo unique and one of the major reasons why users use it to the version numbers - Portage. We had 1.2, then 1.4 then 2004.0 and if i'm not mistaken portage is at 2.1 currently. Tie it in and we have 2.2 (currently masked) next. Add release candidates along the way and everyone is happy. But i'm sure there is a million reasons why this is wrong... Bring on the wrath. these two things simply dont make sense to tie together. profiles control the default configuration for your system (USE flags / build flags / etc...) while portage is a package manager. version changes in the package manager dont directly relate in any way to the default configuration the user has selected. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: 2009.0 profiles
On Saturday 29 August 2009 05:42:45 Duncan wrote: Mike Frysinger posted on Sat, 29 Aug 2009 02:56:33 -0400 as excerpted: On Friday 28 August 2009 20:05:12 Alex Alexander wrote: On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 00:23, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday 28 August 2009 16:27:18 Sebastian Pipping wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: 10.0 is retarded How would you like the problem to be addressed? we already have a simple logical version system. 2009.0 is the next step. Years do not make a good versioning scheme, if one release gets out late you're automatically considered outdated by users. then help the release team to get more tested releases, otherwise reality is we are releasing out of date install media But as we all know, releases != profiles. If there's no reason to update the profiles besides the fact that the name incorporates a year, and they look out of date, why do so? For that reason, getting away from year for the profiles is a reasonable idea, now that Gentoo seems to be mature enough that we don't need a new profile multiple times a year. OTOH, having the year in there, as long as people don't get fixated on it, can be useful as an indication of when the profile was born, just not necessarily that it's outdated. If it weren't for the outdated appearance, therefore, year would be fine. except that profiles and releases have always been tied (for good reason). profile default changes are made as part of the release process. if we want to change a USE flag default, we dont (shouldnt) be doing it to live profiles. it is part of the natural version bumping. releng has always been managing new profiles since we started the process years ago and there's no reason to change now. Whatever, bikeshedding from my perspective, and this one I don't /care/ what the color/name is. But since we already have 10.0 profiles in-tree, just run with them, as it's more work to worry about changing them now, than it's worth. (And, I might add, I'm glad they're in, as the /last/ thing we need is to be stalemated debating it for a year or two, as it /is/ bikeshedding.) date based profiles isnt bikeshedding, it's logical. and if your only complaint is that it doesnt matter, then there is absolutely no reason to go changing from what we've been doing for years with no complaints. picking random numbers out of your ass (like 10.0) is confusing. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: 2009.0 profiles
Mike Frysinger wrote: ... Why not tie the the thing that makes Gentoo unique and one of the major reasons why users use it to the version numbers - Portage. We had 1.2, then 1.4 then 2004.0 and if i'm not mistaken portage is at 2.1 currently. Tie it in and we have 2.2 (currently masked) next. Add release candidates along the way and everyone is happy. But i'm sure there is a million reasons why this is wrong... Bring on the wrath. George
[gentoo-dev] Re: 2009.0 profiles
Mike Frysinger posted on Sat, 29 Aug 2009 02:56:33 -0400 as excerpted: On Friday 28 August 2009 20:05:12 Alex Alexander wrote: On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 00:23, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Friday 28 August 2009 16:27:18 Sebastian Pipping wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: 10.0 is retarded How would you like the problem to be addressed? we already have a simple logical version system. 2009.0 is the next step. Years do not make a good versioning scheme, if one release gets out late you're automatically considered outdated by users. then help the release team to get more tested releases, otherwise reality is we are releasing out of date install media But as we all know, releases != profiles. If there's no reason to update the profiles besides the fact that the name incorporates a year, and they look out of date, why do so? For that reason, getting away from year for the profiles is a reasonable idea, now that Gentoo seems to be mature enough that we don't need a new profile multiple times a year. OTOH, having the year in there, as long as people don't get fixated on it, can be useful as an indication of when the profile was born, just not necessarily that it's outdated. If it weren't for the outdated appearance, therefore, year would be fine. Whatever, bikeshedding from my perspective, and this one I don't /care/ what the color/name is. But since we already have 10.0 profiles in-tree, just run with them, as it's more work to worry about changing them now, than it's worth. (And, I might add, I'm glad they're in, as the /last/ thing we need is to be stalemated debating it for a year or two, as it /is/ bikeshedding.) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
