From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18338 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2004 15:23:38 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 9 Aug 2004 15:23:38 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BuBzu-0004Jp-HY for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 09 Aug 2004 15:23:38 +0000 Received: (qmail 3657 invoked by uid 89); 9 Aug 2004 15:23:30 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 15295 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2004 15:23:30 +0000 From: Corey Shields Organization: Gentoo Linux - Infrastructure team To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 10:23:18 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <20040808185144.GB29077@mail.lieber.org> <200408090104.50263.absinthe@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200408090104.50263.absinthe@gentoo.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200408091023.18615.cshields@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 19, reloaded (again) X-Archives-Salt: 18307cb7-af36-49d6-9a5b-7175f62dc57a X-Archives-Hash: 62c179c3726d5581187fd9f8d8b8ef64 On Monday 09 August 2004 12:04 am, Dylan Carlson wrote: > However, if we propose using a different tree, repo or branch tags for > enterprise, I'm not a big fan of that approach. IMO it should be taken > incrementally; that is, get it to work in the existing tree w/ new > profiles, and if there is some implementation problem getting enterprise > to co-exist with everything else, move it out. The reason for this is because with the current tree, old versions would be removed too soon. Yet we don't want a larger tree for our general user base, so having a seperate tree is the current solution. It would be identical to the current tree with regards to new packages, but older packages would not be deleted 3 months after they have become outdated, per se. This is the whole idea behind a stable tree. If I can go a year without needing to update gcc on a production server, then I don't want to have to update it. Yet if the version I am running is pulled out of the tree, that may cause problems for new installs. Cheers! -C -- Corey Shields Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team and Devrel Team Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list