Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles

2009-08-29 Thread Mike Frysinger
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 late you're automatically considered outdated by users.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we are releasing out of date install media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

2009-08-29 Thread Ulrich Mueller
 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 late you're automatically considered outdated by users.

You don't make it less outdated by obscuring the version system.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

2009-08-28 Thread Michael Hammer
-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

2009-08-28 Thread Samuli Suominen
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

2009-08-28 Thread Sebastian Pipping
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

2009-08-28 Thread Josh Saddler
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

2009-08-28 Thread Sebastian Pipping
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

2009-08-28 Thread Mike Frysinger
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

2009-08-28 Thread Sebastian Pipping
Mike Frysinger wrote:
 10.0 is retarded

How would you like the problem to be addressed?



Sebastian



Re: [gentoo-dev] 2009.0 profiles

2009-08-28 Thread Mike Frysinger
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

2009-08-28 Thread George Prowse
-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

2009-08-28 Thread Alex Alexander
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

2009-08-27 Thread Sebastian Pipping
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

2009-08-01 Thread Ben de Groot
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

2009-08-01 Thread AllenJB
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

2009-08-01 Thread Zac Medico
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