From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1086 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2004 21:13:46 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 16 Sep 2004 21:13:46 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C83ZZ-0006da-9K for arch-gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:13:45 +0000 Received: (qmail 2080 invoked by uid 89); 16 Sep 2004 21:13:44 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-portage-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail Reply-To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 3918 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2004 21:13:43 +0000 From: Christian Hoenig To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:13:40 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.7 References: <20040916180837.GA23524@gentoo.org> <200409162209.13596.list@hoenig.cc> <20040916225004.250a588f@andy.genone.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <20040916225004.250a588f@andy.genone.homeip.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200409162313.41074.list@hoenig.cc> X-Relay-User: christian@hoenig.cc Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] naming scheme X-Archives-Salt: 4a86c9fe-87da-42e3-9703-1470a4941658 X-Archives-Hash: d43d36b0839393c50fdd4f57cf0c7b65 On Thursday 16 September 2004 22:50, Marius Mauch wrote: > > > > Why is portage using such a strange naming scheme? Why are we > > > > only increasing =B4build numbers=B4? As this seems to be a major > > > > release, why don=B4t we make a 2.1 out of it? > > > > > > I don't think this is a "major" release as in "major version" but > > > more as in "big deal". From what I've heard, a major version change > > > will be reserved for a complete rewrite of Portage. > > > > You mean, it needs a complete rewrite for a 2.1? > > If thats the case, why don=B4t we simply drop the =B42=B4? ;-) > > 3.x will be a complete rewrite. > 2.1 will bring structural changes to vardb and the new API Ah, OK, thanks for the info :-) take care, have fun /christian -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list