From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <cmjohn@mail.utexas.edu>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_NONE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,
NICE_REPLY_A,WEIRD_PORT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
version=4.0.0
Received: from mail.utexas.edu (wb2-a.mail.utexas.edu [128.83.126.136])
by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with SMTP id C4F69200AD3F
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 17:40:49 -0600 (CST)
Received: (qmail 21506 invoked by uid 0); 29 Mar 2002 23:36:22 -0000
Received: from cs666848-34.austin.rr.com (HELO mule.relentless.org) (66.68.48.34)
by umbs-smtp-2 with SMTP; 29 Mar 2002 23:36:22 -0000
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Unstable branch proposal - second round
From: Chris Johnson <cmjohn@mail.utexas.edu>
To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
In-Reply-To: <20020325112402.296491A429@linuxbox.internal.lan>
References: <200203161942.LAA07376@chamber.cco.caltech.edu>
<20020325112402.296491A429@linuxbox.internal.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3
Date: 29 Mar 2002 17:40:37 -0600
Message-Id: <1017445237.10692.31.camel@mule.relentless.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org
Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev-request@gentoo.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev>,
<mailto:gentoo-dev-request@gentoo.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev>,
<mailto:gentoo-dev-request@gentoo.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gentoo.org/pipermail/gentoo-dev/>
X-Archives-Salt: 1185a87c-9ba6-4eb6-8c82-66234c08ec8e
X-Archives-Hash: 9f6ea17f4d902c1164fa0b370df462e7
What I don't like about this, and catching Aaron Cohen's tone perhaps in
his follow-up email ("Great, we will be a Debian Want a be!"), is the
complexity of a set of cvs branches, stability levels, etc.
It's what has made a mess of debian from the perspective of having
mature packages float to the top and become available in a timely
manner. See, if I run debian, I have to make all sorts of decisions
about what stability level, which tree, which mirrors, etc. I want to
connect to. With the quality of ebuilds and the ease of the gentoo
system, we can have much lower complexity and higher quality.
I vote strongly against any cvs branches of the portage tree--that's why
we currently have the -rx designations, anyway! Leverage that and the
organic nature of the community (i.e., see my proposal at
http://relentless.org:8000/gentoo/forum/message?message_id=6584&forum_id=6581 )
to get a simple, effective system.
Please, avoid the duplication of effort that all the branches of debian
represent!
Chris
On Mon, 2002-03-25 at 05:23, Troy Dack wrote:
> ( new post @ bottom, original left in for continuity ... )
>
> On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 06:46, George Shapovalov thought that we needed this:
>
> > Hi All.
> >
> > I just looked again through the recent thread and here are some thoughts I
<snip>
> > newcomers can start to actively contribute to the system, while allowing
> > "core" people to concentrate on essential stuff.
> >
> > George
>
> George,
> After reading the messages in this thread (particularly the last two
> posted by you) I'd like to say that I agree with you and to add a couple of
> thoughts of my own.
>
> I like the idea of having ebuilds submitted via bugs.gentoo.org being made
> easily available to all gentoo users -- keeping one interface for
> submission is a good idea.
>
> However instead of (as well as) your multiple package state levels how
> about this (this is all just hypthesis, I don't know if it is possible, I
> don't know enough about all the tools used):
>
> Multiple cvs branches along the lines of this:
>
> Testing Branch - primarily for use by developers.
> - new ebuilds from bugs.gentoo.org come in here
> - If there is no activity on an ebuild (it's bug)
> for 14 days it get's moved to Unstable
>
> Unstable Branch - ebuilds that have made it out of testing and *should*
> work for most users
> - flagged as Stable after 28 days of nil activity on the bug
> - need to be reviewd by gentoo dev team before getting into
> Stable
>
> Stable Branch - ebuilds that have made it out of Unstable and are suitable
> for general consupmtion.
> - the beginning of the "next" gentoo release branch
>
> Release Branch - ebuilds that are the *current* release of gentoo
> - no changes (except critical security and bug fixes) to
> be made to this branch
>
> My proposal to integrate this into the portage system and give users a
> means of selecting which branch they wish to rsync against.
>
> eg:
> root@gentoobox # GENTOOBRANCH="UNSTABLE" emerge rsync
> ... updating /usr/portage/unstable from cvs.gentoo.org/unstable
>
> or
>
> root@gentoobox # emerge rsync
> ... updating /usr/portage/release from cvs.gentoo.org
>
> ie: emerge defaults to using the release branch.
>
> It may mean a slightly larger /usr/portage for some users (particularly
> devs), but I think it is needed to reduce the rash of -rX ebuilds that are
> coming out as the developers _react_ to all the problems that are occuring.
>
> This will also allow new users to install a version of gentoo that will
> actually work first go. Then as they get comfortable with the system they
> can start to experiment, first with Stable ebuilds and then move on to
> Unstable and become part of the development process.
>
> Just my $0.02, either way I'm still going to continue to use gentoo, it is
> by far the best way to learn about and use linux going.
>
> --
> Troy Dack
> http://linuxserver.tkdack.com
>
> "...Unix, MS-DOS, and Windows NT (also known as the Good, the Bad, and
> the Ugly)." (By Matt Welsh)
>