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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_QUAR,FREEMAIL_FROM, MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from yatze.fizzelpark.com (yatze.fizzelpark.com [195.94.81.200]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 5B2782005163 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 07:02:55 -0600 (CST) Received: (qmail 10887 invoked by uid 507); 5 Mar 2002 12:58:56 -0000 Received: from thilo.bangert@gmx.net by yatze by uid 504 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.7/3.52. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.152876 secs); 05 Mar 2002 12:58:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO there) (212.88.65.183) by mail.fizzelpark.com (195.94.81.201) with SMTP; 05 Mar 2002 12:58:54 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Thilo Bangert To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for an unstable branch Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 14:33:34 +0100 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] References: <20020304064134.GB17581@shellak.helsinki.fi> <3C83C60A.6080305@btinternet.com> <20020305060219.GA7463@shellak.helsinki.fi> In-Reply-To: <20020305060219.GA7463@shellak.helsinki.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <20020305130255.5B2782005163@chiba.3jane.net> 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: 22b8211d-d4e5-4bc6-b594-609b4d10760e X-Archives-Hash: 9d3739862d20f48540090a8fdae73bc1 On Tuesday, 5. March 2002 07:02, you wrote: > On 04.03.02 19:07 +0000(+0000), ian.c.smith@btinternet.com wrote: > > Why not just unmask the ebuilds you are interested in? > > The problem is that the current system (submitting ebuilds > via bugzilla) is too slow and requires too much effort from > the developers, for a unstable branch. > this is excactly the problem, on the other hand it shows the good things about gentoo: its growing, people are interested to help and the main developers are trying to keep the distribution stable..... lets not change any of that! but maybe we still can address the problem how about having a unstable.gentoo.org which is selfmanaged - if you want a certain ebuild in the unstable tree, all you need to do is register and add it. your then responsible until you give maintainership to somebody else (or nobody, which would mark the package unmaintained). also this tree is sync'ed with the stable gentoo every hour. certain packages (maybe even categories) can not be modified (ie. baselayout), those should stay in the stable branch. or something like that... > - Einar Karttunen Thilo