Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: 2009.0 profiles

2009-09-12 Thread Mike Frysinger
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

2009-09-11 Thread Mike Frysinger
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  late you're automatically considered outdated by users.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  reality is we are releasing out of date install media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 look out of date, why do so?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 necessarily that it's outdated.  If it weren't for the outdated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

2009-09-11 Thread George Prowse

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