From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JW7PK-0005oA-2X for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:56:30 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 434B1E01AD; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:56:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mbox.unige.ch (mbox.unige.ch [129.194.9.209]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1901CE01AD for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:56:28 +0000 (UTC) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-version: 1.0 Content-disposition: inline Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Received: from [129.194.54.121] by mbox.unige.ch (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-3.01 (built Jul 12 2007; 32bit)) with ESMTPS id <0JX500I1VFM3CZ40@mbox.unige.ch> for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:56:27 +0100 (CET) From: George Shapovalov To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for March Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 08:32:53 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <20080301103002.A2AE266A22@smtp.gentoo.org> <200803020948.50059.george@gentoo.org> <47CA9EBA.9070204@gentoo.org> In-reply-to: <47CA9EBA.9070204@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Linux Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Message-id: <200803030832.53680.george@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 90fc8b74-5346-48d5-89fa-3e26554c1570 X-Archives-Hash: c5211552846e7becb878ceec6c3b4482 Sunday, 2. March 2008, Richard Freeman =D0=92=D0=B8 =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0= =B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB=D0=B8: > George Shapovalov wrote: > > The good thing about this approach is that it only requires an initial > > investment of organizing and automating things but does not add any > > regular work to the devs. In fact, if the "tested" category becomes > > popular enough, it can cut the work for stable testers, may be even by > > something like a factor of 10 eventually (due to less requests for > > explicit stabilizaion being issued).. > > We might also aim to make it easy for users to mix-and-match levels of > stability by package. I know it is possible already, but perhaps it > could be improved, or pre-canned lists of packages that users might > typically want bleeding-edge vs stable could be compiled. Well, we already have "system set" and it is defined in profile. With users= =20 being able to define and use their own profiles all that is left to do is t= o=20 add an ability by portage to use different stability settings for system an= d=20 out-of-system packages, as the most trivial approach. Of course more comple= x=20 combinations are possible, but would require a proper discussion. > I think there are a large number of users who wouldn't mind less > stability on packages that won't prevent booting or network-access or > general use of their system. If some nice-to-have utility breaks I > don't mind reverting it, but if baselayout goes haywire I could spend > hours just getting my system to boot. Exactly. I did not mention this in order not to overcomplicate my previous= =20 message, but this is one of the things I had in ming for a long time. Besid= es > I like your idea though. Thanks! Although it is somewhat strange to hear "idea" when it has been=20 an "old news" :) (at least for me), just check the timing of that bug I=20 mentioned above. I merely adapted one of the not-yet-implemented issues=20 discussed there to the present situation. Oh, btw, these two issues (extra stability levels and separate stability=20 rankings for groups of packages) are independant enough to make it possible= =20 to implement them separately. George -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list