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 CC5BF1395E1 for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 20:14:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D1AD8E0913; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 20:14:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A003AE07FD for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 20:14:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from professor-x (d108-172-194-175.bchsia.telus.net [108.172.194.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: dolsen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B0F2B34155D for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 20:14:25 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:14:22 -0700 From: Brian Dolbec To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-2.3.2 stable request? Message-ID: <20161104131422.585a1e73.dolsen@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <2275c91d-8320-2876-6b4b-81e976fe9eee@gentoo.org> References: <2275c91d-8320-2876-6b4b-81e976fe9eee@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 43186f32-bb20-4ee7-aec3-f5db2314c099 X-Archives-Hash: ef5bd9e6333d6cd4da1a4ebdb72a9c56 On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:55:23 -0700 Zac Medico wrote: > In about a week, portage-2.3.2 will be eligible for a stable request. > > The only potential problem that I've noticed is the complaint about > changes from bug 552814 causing issues for people using git sync with > overlay filesystems, but setting sync-depth = 0 gives those users a > workaround. There's also bug 597838, about the sync-depth setting > being ineffective, but I only know of a couple of people that have > been able to reproduce that. > > So, do we want to do a stable request portage-2.3.2 when the time > comes? I'm not sure. Do we -r1 it adding a patch or two and ask it be stabled? -- Brian Dolbec