Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] LTS branch of Portage
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 1:31 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > Hi, everyone. > > I've been thinking about this for some time already, and the recent > FILESDIR mess seems to confirm it: I'd like to start a more stable LTS > branch of Portage. > > Roughly, the idea is that: > > - master becomes 3.1.x, and primary development happens there > > - 3.0.x becomes the LTS branch and only major bugfixes are backported > there > > As things settle down in the future, master would become 3.2.x, 3.1.x > would become LTS, 3.0.x will be discontinued and so on. I'd appreciate a brief overview of how we would expect users to install each branch. E.g. one way might be: sys-apps/portage- # dev branch sys-apps/portage-3.1.x # LTS branch sys-apps/portage-3.0.x # old branch; unmaintained -A > > WDYT? > > -- > Best regards, > Michał Górny > > >
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] LTS branch of Portage
On Tue, 2021-10-05 at 13:16 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On Tue, 2021-10-05 at 17:13 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > 2. What happens to the LTS branch when the next EAPI is released? > > > > > > > I haven't really thought about it. Are you suggesting that we could > > bump 'master' Portage to newer EAPI earlier or...? > > > > I just mean that, a priori, the LTS branch won't be able to install > ebuilds that use the next EAPI. Backporting an entire EAPI doesn't seem > appropriate for a stable series; but maintaining an increasingly- > obsolete branch at that point doesn't make much sense either. Ah, that makes sense. Indeed, I suppose a new EAPI will be a good point of switching master to LTS. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] LTS branch of Portage
On Tue, 2021-10-05 at 17:13 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > > 2. What happens to the LTS branch when the next EAPI is released? > > > > I haven't really thought about it. Are you suggesting that we could > bump 'master' Portage to newer EAPI earlier or...? > I just mean that, a priori, the LTS branch won't be able to install ebuilds that use the next EAPI. Backporting an entire EAPI doesn't seem appropriate for a stable series; but maintaining an increasingly- obsolete branch at that point doesn't make much sense either.
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] LTS branch of Portage
On Tue, 2021-10-05 at 10:15 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On Tue, 2021-10-05 at 10:31 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hi, everyone. > > > > I've been thinking about this for some time already, and the recent > > FILESDIR mess seems to confirm it: I'd like to start a more stable LTS > > branch of Portage. > > > > I think this is healthy for most software projects, but two things > stand out to me for portage specifically: > > 1. Most portage users can fake this already by telling portage to > accept only stable keywords for sys-apps/portage. I know it's not > exactly the same, but it provides many of the same benefits. That's not going to be possible long-term when I start making more changes ;-). > 2. What happens to the LTS branch when the next EAPI is released? > I haven't really thought about it. Are you suggesting that we could bump 'master' Portage to newer EAPI earlier or...? -- Best regards, Michał Górny
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] LTS branch of Portage
On Tue, 2021-10-05 at 10:31 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, everyone. > > I've been thinking about this for some time already, and the recent > FILESDIR mess seems to confirm it: I'd like to start a more stable LTS > branch of Portage. > I think this is healthy for most software projects, but two things stand out to me for portage specifically: 1. Most portage users can fake this already by telling portage to accept only stable keywords for sys-apps/portage. I know it's not exactly the same, but it provides many of the same benefits. 2. What happens to the LTS branch when the next EAPI is released?
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] LTS branch of Portage
In all fairness, there haven't been that much incidents with Portage in the past under Zac's supervision, isn't it a bit overkill to bureaucratise the release model just after one incident? It appears to me that changes to Portage need to be considered very carefully, always, since it affects everyone. Thanks, Fabian On 05-10-2021 10:31:40 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, everyone. > > I've been thinking about this for some time already, and the recent > FILESDIR mess seems to confirm it: I'd like to start a more stable LTS > branch of Portage. > > Roughly, the idea is that: > > - master becomes 3.1.x, and primary development happens there > > - 3.0.x becomes the LTS branch and only major bugfixes are backported > there > > As things settle down in the future, master would become 3.2.x, 3.1.x > would become LTS, 3.0.x will be discontinued and so on. > > WDYT? > > -- > Best regards, > Michał Górny > > > -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] LTS branch of Portage
Hi, everyone. I've been thinking about this for some time already, and the recent FILESDIR mess seems to confirm it: I'd like to start a more stable LTS branch of Portage. Roughly, the idea is that: - master becomes 3.1.x, and primary development happens there - 3.0.x becomes the LTS branch and only major bugfixes are backported there As things settle down in the future, master would become 3.2.x, 3.1.x would become LTS, 3.0.x will be discontinued and so on. WDYT? -- Best regards, Michał Górny
