From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j2DM2x73020648 for ; Sun, 13 Mar 2005 22:02:59 GMT Received: from ctb-mesg1.saix.net ([196.25.240.73]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DAbAo-0002j4-Ao for gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org; Sun, 13 Mar 2005 22:02:58 +0000 Received: from gateway.lan (wblv-146-195-166.telkomadsl.co.za [165.146.195.166]) by ctb-mesg1.saix.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68EF3614F for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:02:55 +0200 (SAST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gateway.lan (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A28C3A26DB for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:07:59 +0200 (SAST) Received: from gateway.lan ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (gateway.lan [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 13310-05 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:07:54 +0200 (SAST) Received: from nosferatu.lan (nosferatu.lan [192.168.0.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher IDEA-CBC-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gateway.lan (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F5A03A26DA for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:07:54 +0200 (SAST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Identifying inherit-only / usable profiles (round 2) From: Martin Schlemmer To: gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <1110745173.18760.6.camel@vertigo.twi-31o2.org> References: <42224847.1060703@gentoo.org> <42248535.6040602@gentoo.org> <1110220955.9520.212.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <200503080924.04525.vapier@gentoo.org> <422E8204.6020706@gentoo.org> <422FA5E0.3030709@hub.net.nz> <1110469745.21812.11.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <20050310155333.622592c6@snowdrop> <1110472061.21812.28.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <423483AA.8000706@hub.net.nz> <1110745173.18760.6.camel@vertigo.twi-31o2.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-zeypZVeLRS6eo/jN1nzP" Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:05:56 +0200 Message-Id: <1110751556.9011.0.camel@nosferatu.lan> Precedence: bulk List-Post: , , List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.0 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at nosferatu.za.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: cc47f320-66b1-4755-8b1d-3ed31e548c01 X-Archives-Hash: c62e68d03ea63f5ec871c87288bd3c2b --=-zeypZVeLRS6eo/jN1nzP Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 15:19 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 07:17 +1300, Jerome Brown wrote: > > Wont this cause headaches when it comes to depreciating profiles > > however? If there are very few changes between versions, I can forsee a > > time where someone wants to keep 2004.3, 2005.0, 2005.1, 2006.0, 2006.1= , > > 2007.0, 2007.1 around because 2008.0 inherits from 2007.1 which inherit= s > > from ... (you get the idea). How would this work and how long would you > > be willing to keep a profile around for until it is removed and not jus= t > > depreciated? >=20 > Well, we would need to have enough sense to migrate data when we > deprecate. Once we deprecate 2004.3, we would copy the 2004.3 stuff to > 2005.0 and break the inheritance on 2004.3 from 2005.0 and so on. >=20 > As for deprecation, I think we currently have a loose rule of 6 months > after deprecation for the profile removal. >=20 How about plan B: Do not make sub profiles depend on each other? --=20 Martin Schlemmer Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer Cape Town, South Africa --=-zeypZVeLRS6eo/jN1nzP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBCNLlEqburzKaJYLYRAgW1AJ9jMmKiJbDtfeB+I95dooynVzzq9ACeLLnA aM2QBPRtACGpWHTR/QtiGNg= =tPSy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-zeypZVeLRS6eo/jN1nzP-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list