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, WEIRD_PORT 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 A66F2201A0FC for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 03:03:26 -0600 (CST) Received: from there (PPP-36-201.caltech.edu [131.215.36.201]) by chamber.cco.caltech.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA03263 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 00:58:55 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200203300858.AAA03263@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: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 00:57:21 -0800 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] References: <20020325112402.296491A429@linuxbox.internal.lan> <1017445237.10692.31.camel@mule.relentless.org> <20020330060201.6B2A11A487@linuxbox.internal.lan> In-Reply-To: <20020330060201.6B2A11A487@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: 9fb141c1-02a1-454b-8d5a-35baeeadf2bf X-Archives-Hash: bb3566e36977246d144b065268dba056 Please see below. On Friday 29 March 2002 22:02, you wrote: > On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:40, Chris Johnson got a bunch of monkeys togethe= r > > I vote strongly against any cvs branches of the portage tree--that's = why > > we currently have the -rx designations, anyway! Leverage that and the > > organic nature of the community (i.e., see my proposal at > > http://relentless.org:8000/gentoo/forum/message?message_id=3D6584&forum= _id=3D65 >81 > > > ) to get a simple, effective system. > > > > Please, avoid the duplication of effort that all the branches of debi= an > > represent! > > > > Chris > [snip] > The problem comes when a new user is trying to build their system and t= hey > get all these errors. We don't want to discourage newcomers by having = a > tree of ebuilds that is not 100% stable for their first installation. > > That was my main reason for suggesting seperate CVS branch(es). [snip] > Perhaps a compromise .... > > A stable/install CVS branch that is only used during the initial > bootstrap/build process and afterwards portage defaults to using the > regular CVS tree? With multiple stability levels you will get the same effect by setting=20 Stability_Level =3D approved rsync_Stability_Level =3D Stability_Level and withoud a need for a separate CVS branch! New users will get a stable system and when later they learn enough about= =20 linux and gentoo in particular they will know what these flags mean and w= ill=20 start exploring ... :-). (here I refer to the flags I introduced in my writeup at: www.its.caltech.edu/~georges/gentoo/epsp/proposal.html ) Chris proposed somewhat different definition of stability levels. Whil= e=20 overall structure is different the "stable" ebuilds will correspond to ju= st=20 such level. (please visit: http://relentless.org:8000/gentoo/forum/message?message_id=3D6584&forum_i= d=3D6581 for his submissions where he brings up some important aspects. Chris: I a= m=20 going to reply in the forum soon). Side note: I am not sure if we should use forum which Chis set up or continue in the= =20 list. First allows nice concise place for discussion, second gives better= =20 exposure. In fact there is an alternative - we can use bugs.gentoo.org an= d I=20 am going to enter this proposal there (not only my writeup but whatever w= ill=20 accumulate by then) either when 1.0 comes out (and freeze is over) or in= =20 about a week or two, whichever is shorter. However this has the same prob= lem=20 of low exposure, on the other hand it grabs attention of core group, so r= ight=20 now I like that the best.=20 If only there was a discussion area setup under gentoo.org (which would n= ot=20 require a bugzilla account. I have no problem with that but it scares off= =20 many people. For the "discussion" situation it is not really necessary=20 anyway). George