From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-23802-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@gentoo.org>) id 1HonEu-0001LN-IM for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 17 May 2007 21:10:25 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l4HL8jKT007391; Thu, 17 May 2007 21:08:45 GMT Received: from mail.twi-31o2.org (66-191-187-123.dhcp.gnvl.sc.charter.com [66.191.187.123]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l4HL5NEq002630 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 17 May 2007 21:05:23 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.twi-31o2.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C61242480E2 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 17 May 2007 16:54:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at twi-31o2.org Received: from mail.twi-31o2.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (gravity.twi-31o2.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KbGvBLYZp9wx for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 17 May 2007 16:53:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.100.51] (dsl211-165-131.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [74.211.165.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.twi-31o2.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F3C8248079 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 17 May 2007 16:53:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0 From: Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <464CA00D.9080102@gentoo.org> References: <38928.192.168.2.155.1179228617.squirrel@www.aei-tech.com> <pan.2007.05.15.17.22.21@cox.net> <4649F736.3020807@gentoo.org> <1179336288.23409.7.camel@workbox.quova.com> <464B400F.30208@gentoo.org> <35060.192.168.2.155.1179337715.squirrel@www.aei-tech.com> <1179425153.24852.10.camel@workbox.quova.com> <464CA00D.9080102@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-QfY+2UvAFHhCHNs/GGLx" Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 14:05:17 -0700 Message-Id: <1179435917.25168.10.camel@workbox.quova.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 X-Archives-Salt: 54d1a779-a79a-4daf-aaad-d1eab327035f X-Archives-Hash: fa52fb5e826a9f2b9028fd7d07892392 --=-QfY+2UvAFHhCHNs/GGLx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 20:33 +0200, R=C3=A9mi Cardona wrote: > Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > It's simple. You mask expat-2.0.0 on all the current profiles, we mark > > it stable in the snapshot and don't have it masked in the 2007.1 > > profile. When we release (actually right before), we mark the package > > stable in the tree. We document the expat upgrade as part of the > > profile upgrade guide, and we're done. Users using a <=3D2007.0 profil= e > > never see the upgrade. New users use the new expat. Users changing to > > the 2007.1 profile run revdep-rebuild. >=20 > +1 >=20 > Now, how can we do this? Could we start changing the profiles right now? Considering we already have a 2.0.0 ebuild, we do the following: - Mask >=3D2.0.0-r9 (this allows for security bumps, if necessary, number can be adjusted) - Copy 2.0.0 to 2.0.0-r9 - When we make a new 2007.1 profile, don't mask >=3D2.0.0-r9 - Stable 2.0.0-r9 in the 2007.1 snapshot and mark it stable in the tree with the release - ??? - Profit! > (I guess people on ~arch will need to unmask it to not downgrade). Well, with what I have said, there's room for version bumps, if required. It also means ~arch people don't have to do anything. There won't be any downgrade and we simply never mark anything below 2.0.0-r9 stable to keep stable users safe. > Should this be brought to the next council meeting? Is that really necessary? What can the Council do that we cannot agree upon here as civil adults? I think we can agree to do this ourselves. I can definitely agree to it from a Release Engineering standpoint. It would work quite well and is beneficial to our users. > Chris, I could write a small paragraph for whatever GWN explaining what > stable and unstable users will have to do if you want. Sure. However, if we did follow my draft plan above, there would be no need. Users running ~arch have probably hit this already by now, so I don't think we would be informing too many people. That being said, it would make a cool article. Even if just to show that, yes, we really do care for our users and think about ways to reduce the impact on their systems. --=20 Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation --=-QfY+2UvAFHhCHNs/GGLx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGTMONkT4lNIS36YERAth5AJ9J3d1QgSu0jgpN0Jk9U2vNY9eCowCcDPgO R/zvcUOimI8I9ZBs7Pz/qCc= =r1sg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-QfY+2UvAFHhCHNs/GGLx-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list