-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alec Warner wrote:
Zmedico did a lot of things with usage of global variables, however I
think that getting all that tested ( especially in scripts that we don't
keep track of ) is detremental to getting portage stable. I agree that
>>>
Zac Medico wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alec Warner wrote:
Marius Mauch wrote:
Alec Warner schrieb:
Why Branch at 2.1_pre9?
Manifest2 is already in the tree and needs refinement. Branching at
pre7 is also a canidate, but i would rather press for keeping manifest2
in t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alec Warner wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
>> Alec Warner schrieb:
>>> Why Branch at 2.1_pre9?
>>> Manifest2 is already in the tree and needs refinement. Branching at
>>> pre7 is also a canidate, but i would rather press for keeping manifest2
>>> in the
Marius Mauch wrote:
Alec Warner schrieb:
Why Branch at 2.1_pre9?
Manifest2 is already in the tree and needs refinement. Branching at
pre7 is also a canidate, but i would rather press for keeping manifest2
in the tree and fixing up it's code instead.
Why not pre10?
Because pre10 seems to in
Based on the recent "Stabilizing portage 2.1" thread, should I provide
patches based on pre9 or pre10?
thanks
matt
On 4/30/06, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
m h wrote:
> OK will do that. Since, I'm not a patching pro, can you suggest a
> good way of creating a series of patches t
Alec Warner schrieb:
Why Branch at 2.1_pre9?
Manifest2 is already in the tree and needs refinement. Branching at
pre7 is also a canidate, but i would rather press for keeping manifest2
in the tree and fixing up it's code instead.
Why not pre10?
TimeLine: If all goes well, we can do an rc som
Per some discussion on IRC, I am bring stablizing 2.1 at the pre9 or
pre10 branch to the table. Reasons for doing so include:
2006.1 - They say if 2.1 is to be in 2006.1, mid-july
Xorg Modular - They cannot stable xorg modular until 2.1 is stable
FreeBSD - Their entire port depends on features an
