Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Weekly News Letter - "Where is Gentoo Linux 1.4"

[jesse <yoda@f00bar.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2978 bytes --]

this sounds good.. and the tree specification is builtin :P 

SYNC="rsync://mirrors.gentoo.org/gentoo-stable"

SYNC="rsync://mirrors.gentoo.org/gentoo-current"

I would be willing to offer time on a project like this ( part time
unfortunately )  considering i am also already maintaining my own
version of the portage tree for stability reasons. 


On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 14:38, Matt Thrailkill wrote:
> Its looking like this is the most practical way of going about achieving
> the stricter version control I and others are thinking about.  And its
> not too much work... but its alot of wasted effort when you have a bunch
> of people doing it for themselves individually.
> 
> Maybe it would be a good idea to have a team/project/whatever who's
> responsibility is to create and maintain snapshots of the Portage tree
> at different times, and let them take care of assigning Gentoo version
> numbers and to those snapshots?  Meanwhile the rest of the Gentoo team
> can just keep moving forward with the ever changing metadistribution and
> not have to worry too much about distilling it for releases so much as
> doing good work and making cool stuff.
> 
> Maybe such a project could be a sub-project of stable.gentoo.org, since
> they seem to be collecting alot of information about stability of things
> in Portage as it is.
> 
> I think what you'd end up with would be most of the people working on
> advancing Gentoo now would be working on what is analagous to -CURRENT
> in FreeBSD, and then this other group of people would be like the
> Release Engineering team (looking at drobbins proposal, he already
> mentioned one), deciding when -CURRENT was ripe for splitting off and
> stabilizing into a release with such and such goals and featureset.
> 
> At the least regimented level, it'd be a centralized place for people
> like Stuart and I to go and pick a static Portage tree to track for our
> servers.  Let the people at that centralized place merge the security
> updates and bugfixes into the static trees as they see fit.  And it
> shouldn't prove much hindrance to the rest of people working on
> advancing the bleeding edge, besides maybe modifications to Portage so
> it has the tree selection abilities built in.
> 
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:01:00 +0200
> Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > In such a case you might want to run your own cvs ( or subversion)
> > tree of "sanctioned ebuilds", and instead of emerge sync run cvs
> > update on the slaves. You then can copy only interesting ebuilds to
> > the cvs tree, and only wanted changes. Of course this is more work,
> > but if it should not be too hard to create a "custom tree" based on
> > the ebuilds that are currently installed. You could put that tree,
> > with the required distfiles on a custom gentoo bootcd, which you could
> > use to install all clients. 
> > 
> > Paul
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]