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 4.54) id 1Fav86-0006QN-OC for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 13:41:31 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k42De2L9022317; Tue, 2 May 2006 13:40:02 GMT Received: from callisto.cs.kun.nl ([131.174.33.75]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k42DbXoX031701 for ; Tue, 2 May 2006 13:37:33 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by callisto.cs.kun.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 271AB2E80BD for ; Tue, 2 May 2006 15:37:33 +0200 (CEST) From: Paul de Vrieze To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo: State of the Union Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 15:37:25 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <20060428171453.GB62035@watcher.kimaker.com> <44533441.1040901@gentoo.org> <4453A7FB.4050700@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4453A7FB.4050700@gentoo.org> X-Face: #Lb+'V@sGJ;ptgo5}V"W+5OCoo{LZv;bh,s,`WKLi/J)ed1_$0;6X<=?utf-8?q?700LVV/=3BLqPhiDP=5E=0A=09=27f=5Dfnv?=@%6M8\'HR1t=aFx;ePfp{ZQoBe+e)JOQ8T5*(_;mHY+cltLGq<;@$Y,=?utf-8?q?O=5C=24=0A=09Tm=23G6M?=,g![Q62J{na*S9d;R[^8pc%u\aiLqU@`kJtYl"^6pxdW Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2262375.fWhKbx9uPF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200605021537.32757.pauldv@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 2ae4609a-7b43-45d3-b2f1-c3b8cd7c6b6b X-Archives-Hash: 35e67e3cdacba35b959decd66b41c584 --nextPart2262375.fWhKbx9uPF Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Saturday 29 April 2006 19:52, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Jan Kundr=E1t wrote: > > Ryan Phillips wrote: > >> Stable and unstable keywords are a hack on top of a version control > >> system. We wouldn't have them if gentoo used an SCM that supports > >> true branches. There would be no need. > > > > Umm, I'm not an ebuild dev, but how would users mix stable and > > unstable packages in such a case? > > They would probably have to check out two trees. But the two trees > combined would likely be the same size as the single tree now, since a > lot of packages have at least two ebuilds available, one ~arch and one > stable. > > The real showstopper in my mind is that having a single ~arch and a > single stable tree means you can't selectively stable things on > different architectures at different times. Agreed, the main advantage of a proper vcs would be that the ancestry=20 between different ebuild versions would be visible. This would make it=20 even possible to merge back working changes from a testing version to a=20 stable version without gambling that it will work. Paul =2D-=20 Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net --nextPart2262375.fWhKbx9uPF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBEV2CcbKx5DBjWFdsRAhO6AJ9K5r4ylZfpJsX9XNct12cezKssVgCghgN0 qv/a9uDUneR7/o/ofSF7D3U= =RsH1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2262375.fWhKbx9uPF-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list