From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89D8F139694 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:52:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 530911FC158; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:52:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oi0-x244.google.com (mail-oi0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A73C1FC017 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:52:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-x244.google.com with SMTP id b130so7943684oii.3 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 07:52:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=scriptkitty-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=YGbB2wTgqSCCElhphZOP5rx5cxs4u2rkN8xZh9ttpBc=; b=RdziHXwtri+MtdeeN+76ID8wW+uHbFLq/DLIon1uNIg97hfBJEgAZFDNX+0FfDdEjf 1GIvFjOgT78eMOP6gQx2h+3KAqyphnazQMPAnY8dkUyWpJKIXwE+H3uyJD+Pc4frAFvm lNo846QOrXgNQB046OG/IrL87OpQi3XMhJplyAP4wFl9kk1SnYw+pZB+TkKroawF75FJ R9fcpBbxWghUBd2zMjzbTnkBpQdSYmb0yRYH/j+AmNmYKKYq5Hq42PIoev9+CnGapd6N Y/i6I6UuqGZQ0jgi7mgNxNcvOagsVUR68sY+G7VXzRIKtfYOhUk8lIE6NNyd5qABvfOW UDhw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=YGbB2wTgqSCCElhphZOP5rx5cxs4u2rkN8xZh9ttpBc=; b=nyqKOmGxyGVenVcUZEn4th8BHjSMT+WM3Yq4+0RtB/ysVpMEamuGcTfR47X0Io1un5 BSlB/xUqICRtGN/bj1DPo7p9Z6GbClPxTbuF4BjoN/ZHPxPuhnyqyutdEhvyiQnfCRm4 FopFOQEX3sLuktC9rCzI1HyAQz62EHe8CAmTKiprKzc8TNcu6VZVs0CkJ7SlDWw3e1h/ SVsSQc/Hq+RyzgPn2zJd1lH7DcINz1lpAGRlQIrTavwGl6jOV4fxMCIF/gh5zyl9evwJ nBAZ2M0oa9PtWyf6qfqF1trBGI17cWWK7Oztn4l8+u8HLsjZ5Xt7aEqT/9DB52juT/ZH GbZw== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111yCo84Pb/xbrH2YJnrcPaAqT9N7ohIvV9SZA2ff98d6jhfgUvN uxNSPjRIWeO6j0AS7dfocf7T0mYcQ6ZQl60= X-Received: by 10.202.4.208 with SMTP id 199mr13758858oie.182.1501512736782; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 07:52:16 -0700 (PDT) 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 Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com Received: by 10.182.32.68 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 07:52:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [2620:0:1003:1001:34d4:a610:2445:3967] In-Reply-To: References: <20170724222223.6d359e47@sf> <20170724232244.GT12397@stuge.se> <1931696.H1tAJ0QB7a@porto> From: Alec Warner Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:52:16 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: bNPgCjrLA5209rhq0QuWQyvUMno Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Future of gentoo's stable and unstable trees: what are your thoughts? To: Gentoo Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c033d64d558505559e2d09" X-Archives-Salt: 832c4242-88cb-4658-b179-f71123176c1a X-Archives-Hash: 80dd0fdee857f2a564733556456a7762 --001a11c033d64d558505559e2d09 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Andreas K. Huettel < > dilfridge@gentoo.org> > > wrote: > >> > >> Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge: > >> > > >> > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. > >> > > >> > I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable) > >> > carries with it an unneccessary cost. > >> > > >> > >> That's not feasible. It would kill off any semi-professional or > >> professional > >> Gentoo use, where a minimum of stability is required. > > > > > > So my argument (for years) has been that this is the right thing all > along. > > > > If people want a stable Gentoo, fork it and maintain it downstream of the > > rambunctious rolling distro. > > > > What is the difference between forking the repository, and just > maintaining a keyword inside the same repository, besides the former > being easier to integrate into QA/etc? > > People who are interested in working on stable already do so, and > people who are not for the most part shouldn't be bothered by it. In > the cases where stable has caused issues with maintainers the council > has generally dropped arches from stable support so that repoman won't > complain when packages are removed. > Sorry, to be clear the conclusion I was hoping to draw is that one has 2 repos instead of 1. 1) Rolling. 2) Stable. Rolling is typical ~arch Gentoo. People in rolling can do whatever they want; they can't affect stable at all. Stable is an entirely separate repo, a fork, where CPVs are pulled from Rolling into Stable. If Stable wants to keep a gnarly old version of some package around; great! But the rolling people don't have to care. > > I won't say that having stable costs us nothing, but I think the cost > is pretty low. Asking people who want stable to leave isn't going to > make things any better. > Nothing stops Gentoo (the organization / community) from housing the above scheme in one organization. I mean, nothing but political will right? :) -A > > -- > Rich > > --001a11c033d64d558505559e2d09 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>= wrote:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge:
>> >
>> > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove = stable.
>> >
>> > I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstab= le)
>> > carries with it an unneccessary cost.
>> >
>>
>> That's not feasible. It would kill off any semi-professional o= r
>> professional
>> Gentoo use, where a minimum of stability is required.
>
>
> So my argument (for years) has been that this is the right thing all a= long.
>
> If people want a stable Gentoo, fork it and maintain it downstream of = the
> rambunctious rolling distro.
>

What is the difference between forking the repository, and just
maintaining a keyword inside the same repository, besides the former
being easier to integrate into QA/etc?

People who are interested in working on stable already do so, and
people who are not for the most part shouldn't be bothered by it.=C2=A0= In
the cases where stable has caused issues with maintainers the council
has generally dropped arches from stable support so that repoman won't<= br> complain when packages are removed.

Sor= ry, to be clear the conclusion I was hoping to draw is that one has 2 repos= instead of 1.

1) Rolling.
2) Stable= .

Rolling is typical ~arch G= entoo. People in rolling can do whatever they want; they can't affect s= table at all.

Stable is an entirely separate repo, a fork, where CPVs are pulled = from Rolling into Stable. If Stable wants to keep a gnarly old version of s= ome package around; great! But the rolling people don't have to care.
=C2=A0

I won't say that having stable costs us nothing, but I think the cost is pretty low.=C2=A0 Asking people who want stable to leave isn't going= to
make things any better.

Nothing stops G= entoo (the organization / community) from housing the above scheme in one o= rganization. I mean, nothing but political will right? :)

-A
=C2=A0

--
Rich


--001a11c033d64d558505559e2d09--