From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from mail.iinet.net.au (symphony-03.iinet.net.au [203.59.3.35]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with SMTP id E3751AC4CA for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 01:09:01 -0500 (CDT) Received: (qmail 7401 invoked by uid 666); 20 Apr 2002 06:08:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rattus.Localdomain) (203.59.196.19) by mail.iinet.net.au with SMTP; 20 Apr 2002 06:08:53 -0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rattus.Localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC2301C39 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 14:08:51 +0800 (WST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Improving stability - checkpoints From: Bill Kenworthy To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <3CC0CF44.8050303@gentoo.org> References: <3CC0CF44.8050303@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.1.0.99 (Preview Release) Date: 20 Apr 2002 14:08:51 +0800 Message-Id: <1019282931.24013.6.camel@rattus> 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: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: 551e250b-f43f-48af-858a-ff9e28646e82 X-Archives-Hash: 5b2d68ad34d062dfc29cb34a47211e43 One item I have not seen is the possibility of auto-rewinding something like the libpng problem back to a working system. CVS is a case in point - when a build is broken, go back a version and build again. Williams checkpoint idea sounds similar to CVS in the way you can specify versions. Now this would be a *real* advance in taking some of the risk out of bleeding edge for all users, average and developer. BillK On Sat, 2002-04-20 at 10:15, William McArthur wrote: > [Sorry if this is a duplicate, I'm currently demonstrating a severe lack > of email skills.] > > The other day there was a discussion on IRC about improving the > stability of the distro as a whole. The popular idea at the time was a > stability metric applied to each package based on a few things. The > following is my thoughts on how to improve the situation with minimal > developer effort. > > First, I don't think the stability metric idea won't have it's desired > effect. The libpng problems would not be prevented with a stability > metric. The problem was not with the package specificlly but the > interaction between pacakges. Specifically packages that linked with > libpng and expected libpng-1.0.* .