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=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_NONE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from chamber.cco.caltech.edu (chamber.cco.caltech.edu [131.215.48.55]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B99520EE844 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 21:41:59 -0600 (CST) Received: from there (DHCP-38-137.caltech.edu [131.215.38.137]) by chamber.cco.caltech.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA19072 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 19:37:46 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200203260337.TAA19072@chamber.cco.caltech.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" From: George Shapovalov To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Unstable branch proposal - second round Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 19:36:59 -0800 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] References: <200203161942.LAA07376@chamber.cco.caltech.edu> <20020325112402.296491A429@linuxbox.internal.lan> In-Reply-To: <20020325112402.296491A429@linuxbox.internal.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 6acdf619-61eb-4466-b287-62db95d1434a X-Archives-Hash: fbbb6eef25fd9157772042975507868f Hi Troy Some new activity on this thread, cool! If I understand correctly your proposal you talk about supporting differe= nt=20 ebuild stabiliyt/status levels by means of creating new branches for ever= y=20 stability level.=20 This seems semantically very similar to my proposal (including use of she= ll=20 variables). There are some technical discripances though which I would=20 like to address here.=20 I shell say that I am working now on writing a detailed proposal of multi= ple=20 ebuild stability levels (and immediate submission visibilty). I will try = to=20 finish it and submit the link to this maillist as soon as possible. > George, > After reading the messages in this thread (particularly the las= t > two posted by you) I'd like to say that I agree with you and to add a > couple of thoughts of my own. > > I like the idea of having ebuilds submitted via bugs.gentoo.org being m= ade > easily available to all gentoo users -- keeping one interface for > submission is a good idea. > > However instead of (as well as) your multiple package state levels how > about this (this is all just hypthesis, I don't know if it is possible,= I > don't know enough about all the tools used): > > Multiple cvs branches along the lines of this: As I said semantically it seems very similar. Technically though, how=20 exactly will this be represented in user (synced) portage tree? Will user= =20 have portage, portage-testing, portage-unstable, etc? I am afraid it will= =20 create more confusion especially if you take into account the need to upd= ate=20 existing ebuilds. What about the package in the stable tree which was upd= ated=20 and new ebuild should get a "testing" status? If you want to keep things=20 semantically consistent and secure you will end up with pieces of package= in=20 different trees. Is this then really different from additional suffix in=20 ebuild name? I designed this change to ebuild name in order to be consist= ent=20 with present ebuild processing scheme. It seems that it should require le= ss=20 modification to portage tools this way and it should keep the whole proce= ss=20 as much as possible automated, not only on the user but also on maintaine= r=20 side. I would guess that maintainers of the server will be unhappy about=20 having to support additional trees.=20 > > Testing Branch - primarily for use by developers. > - new ebuilds from bugs.gentoo.org come in here > - If there is no activity on an ebuild (it's bug) > for 14 days it get's moved to Unstable I personally would be quite opposed to automatic promotion on my system. = I=20 think it should require some user intervention, such as votes for=20 intermediate stability level and core group revision before it gets marke= d as=20 stable. This way you can get whatever stability you want for you setup. I will post the link to all the details as soon as I'll get enough time t= o=20 finish it, I promise :-). > eg: > root@gentoobox # GENTOOBRANCH=3D"UNSTABLE" emerge rsync > ... updating /usr/portage/unstable from cvs.gentoo.org/unstable Nice idea. I actually thought about inclusion of such flags into=20 /etc/make.conf (and all other related files). It should definitely be=20 possible to set this in command line as well. It is good to know that people think along the same lines generally WRT t= his=20 issue. George