Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
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 Years do not make a good versioning scheme, if one release gets out late you're automatically considered outdated by users. then help the release team to get more tested releases, otherwise reality is we are releasing out of date install media -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009, Alex Alexander wrote: On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 00:23, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: 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 Years do not make a good versioning scheme, if one release gets out late you're automatically considered outdated by users. You don't make it less outdated by obscuring the version system. Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Sebastian Pipping schrieb: Does sticking to dates have any real benefits? YES - you don't have to think about another versioning scheme ;) It's nice to see how people are switching to ${year}.${month} and after a while discussing if it isn't better to switch back to an numerous versioning. That's a kind of endless recursion ... isn't it? mueli - -- - Michael Hammer|mu...@gentoo.org | Graz, AT Gentoo Developer (Kerberos) | http://www.michael-hammer.at -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkqXhVUACgkQPsRu3xul8N5AfQCggl72KPEiszQ4GdayfMppN/0O lvEAn1sXkhaNLr0yU2GEv/BlT1cZwzm7 =kpJt -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
Michael Hammer wrote: Sebastian Pipping schrieb: Does sticking to dates have any real benefits? YES - you don't have to think about another versioning scheme ;) It's nice to see how people are switching to ${year}.${month} and after a while discussing if it isn't better to switch back to an numerous versioning. That's a kind of endless recursion ... isn't it? You do realize all this discussion is now pointless as 10.0 profiles are in place already? :-p Bounce it back and forth for an year and get nothing done(tm) - Samuli
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
Samuli Suominen wrote: You do realize all this discussion is now pointless as 10.0 profiles are in place already? :-p So what do we do? Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
Sebastian Pipping wrote: Samuli Suominen wrote: You do realize all this discussion is now pointless as 10.0 profiles are in place already? :-p So what do we do? Sebastian http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-upgrading.xml signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
Josh Saddler wrote: So what do we do? http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-upgrading.xml Please give more precise content pointers or summarize what you want to point out. Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
On Friday 28 August 2009 04:09:01 Samuli Suominen wrote: Michael Hammer wrote: Sebastian Pipping schrieb: Does sticking to dates have any real benefits? YES - you don't have to think about another versioning scheme ;) It's nice to see how people are switching to ${year}.${month} and after a while discussing if it isn't better to switch back to an numerous versioning. That's a kind of endless recursion ... isn't it? You do realize all this discussion is now pointless as 10.0 profiles are in place already? :-p 10.0 is retarded -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
Mike Frysinger wrote: 10.0 is retarded How would you like the problem to be addressed? Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
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. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 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. -mike I think 2.0 sounds good -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkqYeagACgkQCt8MOSeAf9rNXQCePeRtsqNeh7vIhuplYx0Q57nx NdcAn3lHv8mqSxPy3MtHZkUBMnX+lsyc =rl+C -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 00:23, Mike Frysingervap...@gentoo.org 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. -mike Years do not make a good versioning scheme, if one release gets out late you're automatically considered outdated by users. I think 10.0 is cool :) -- Alex || wired Gentoo Dev www.linuxized.com
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
Zac Medico wrote: With the introduction of autobuilds, would it be a good idea to rename the profiles so that they don't have the date association? This does seem to confuse a number of new users who will appear asking where the 2009 profiles are. Maybe, but you could also look at this as a documentation/training issue. My vote is for getting rid of the date association, too. The where is 2009 aspect also is a strong point to me. Does sticking to dates have any real benefits? Sebastian
[gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
We've been living with the 2008.0 profiles for a while now. I think the time has come for 2009.0 profiles so we can have some updates. Also, there are plans for an anniversary release of our LiveCD, so I think the time is right to start working on a new set of profiles. One reason I bring this up is that the Qt team would like to see the qt3 useflag dropped from desktop profiles, and I'm sure others have some suggestions as well. Traditionally, the release team has taken care of this, as the profiles were tied to releases of install media and stage3 archives. Now that we have the autobuilds, this relationship isn't as self-evident anymore, which is why I address the wider dev community. Please share your ideas on this. Cheers, Ben
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
Ben de Groot wrote: We've been living with the 2008.0 profiles for a while now. I think the time has come for 2009.0 profiles so we can have some updates. Also, there are plans for an anniversary release of our LiveCD, so I think the time is right to start working on a new set of profiles. One reason I bring this up is that the Qt team would like to see the qt3 useflag dropped from desktop profiles, and I'm sure others have some suggestions as well. Haven't the devs just been making changes directly to the profiles since at least autobuilds came about? I'm sure I've seen some global use flag changes relatively recently. What is the actual policy on this? It seems kind of pointless to me to tie global use flag changes to a release cycle when per-package use flags are now changed on a whim (with EAPI-2 style default use flags) Traditionally, the release team has taken care of this, as the profiles were tied to releases of install media and stage3 archives. Now that we have the autobuilds, this relationship isn't as self-evident anymore, which is why I address the wider dev community. With the introduction of autobuilds, would it be a good idea to rename the profiles so that they don't have the date association? This does seem to confuse a number of new users who will appear asking where the 2009 profiles are. What does Gentoo use versioned profiles for now that use flag changes, in particular per-package use flags, don't seem to be linked at all. What should they be used for? Is this going to be another thing that isn't updated in the Handbooks? Please share your ideas on this. Cheers, Ben
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles
AllenJB wrote: Ben de Groot wrote: We've been living with the 2008.0 profiles for a while now. I think the time has come for 2009.0 profiles so we can have some updates. Also, there are plans for an anniversary release of our LiveCD, so I think the time is right to start working on a new set of profiles. One reason I bring this up is that the Qt team would like to see the qt3 useflag dropped from desktop profiles, and I'm sure others have some suggestions as well. Haven't the devs just been making changes directly to the profiles since at least autobuilds came about? I'm sure I've seen some global use flag changes relatively recently. What is the actual policy on this? It seems kind of pointless to me to tie global use flag changes to a release cycle when per-package use flags are now changed on a whim (with EAPI-2 style default use flags) I think a release cycle is most useful for handling incompatible changes. This allows us to make changes in newer releases that might break older package managers. Traditionally, the release team has taken care of this, as the profiles were tied to releases of install media and stage3 archives. Now that we have the autobuilds, this relationship isn't as self-evident anymore, which is why I address the wider dev community. With the introduction of autobuilds, would it be a good idea to rename the profiles so that they don't have the date association? This does seem to confuse a number of new users who will appear asking where the 2009 profiles are. Maybe, but you could also look at this as a documentation/training issue. What does Gentoo use versioned profiles for now that use flag changes, in particular per-package use flags, don't seem to be linked at all. What should they be used for? As said above, incompatible changes. However, it might be nice to offer some unversioned profiles for power-users who update regularly and aren't concerned about compatibility issues. Is this going to be another thing that isn't updated in the Handbooks? Please share your ideas on this. Cheers, Ben -- Thanks, Zac