Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 2.1 release candidate soon?

2006-04-07 Thread Ned Ludd
On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 13:13 -0700, Zac Medico wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi everyone, I think the current quality level of the 2.1 branch is good enough to make it a release candidate. From my perspective, it seems like a waste of everyone's time to roll a

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 2.1 release candidate soon?

2006-04-07 Thread Alec Warner
Zac Medico wrote: This kind of thing will be less of a problem if we shorten the period of the release cycle. If we shorted it to 2 months or so, then it won't matter much when something gets bumped to the next cycle. Also this isn't exactly news to you all as I sent my intentions

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 2.1 release candidate soon?

2006-04-07 Thread solar
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 21:06 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Friday 07 April 2006 20:54, Ned Ludd wrote: Handling of the || () in ROOT!=/ via the -K option is not in that good of shape in 2.1_NXX and can't really be used. Till that's addressed 2.1(re-ping jason) in my eyes absolutely should

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 2.1 release candidate soon?

2006-04-07 Thread Zac Medico
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alec Warner wrote: See my problem is that some of the features proposed aren't two month testing features. Particularly when you rewrite decent portions of the application you need longer than two months to get decent testing coverage. Sure Unit

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 2.1 release candidate soon?

2006-04-07 Thread Ned Ludd
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 14:19 -0400, solar wrote: On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 21:06 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Friday 07 April 2006 20:54, Ned Ludd wrote: Handling of the || () in ROOT!=/ via the -K option is not in that good of shape in 2.1_NXX and can't really be used. Till that's