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 8DA341395E2 for ; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 17:34:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A200AE0881; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 17:34:16 +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 71BD4E085C for ; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 17:34:16 +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 B6879341840 for ; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 17:34:15 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 09:34:13 -0800 From: Brian Dolbec To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-2.3.2 stable request? Message-ID: <20161106093413.2a4972f0.dolsen@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <378b82b3-da82-87dd-6d18-bfbfed7123e5@gentoo.org> References: <2275c91d-8320-2876-6b4b-81e976fe9eee@gentoo.org> <20161104131422.585a1e73.dolsen@gentoo.org> <20161104214301.720543d2.mgorny@gentoo.org> <20161104154709.19bdc863.dolsen@gentoo.org> <67ea611d-e71d-590d-6088-ce4f627bcd32@gentoo.org> <1d9fab70-7a81-5816-3a20-ab89dd14528a@gentoo.org> <378b82b3-da82-87dd-6d18-bfbfed7123e5@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=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: d7ad7ccb-06da-4d65-9b5e-3975d8b880e8 X-Archives-Hash: f49991cdd29a55f054994df39e00c76f On Sat, 5 Nov 2016 13:56:44 +0100 Manuel R=C3=BCger wrote: > On 05.11.2016 00:15, Zac Medico wrote: > > On 11/04/2016 03:55 PM, Zac Medico wrote: =20 > >> On 11/04/2016 03:47 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: =20 > >>> On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:53:02 -0700 > >>> Zac Medico wrote: > >>> =20 > >>>> On 11/04/2016 01:43 PM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: =20 > >>>>> On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:19:39 -0700 > >>>>> Zac Medico wrote: > >>>>> =20 > >>>>>> On 11/04/2016 01:14 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: =20 > >>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:55:23 -0700 > >>>>>>> Zac Medico wrote: > >>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>>>> 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 =3D 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? =20 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm not sure. Do we -r1 it adding a patch or two and ask it > >>>>>>> be stabled? =20 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There are just 4 commits since 2.3.2, and they all look good. > >>>>>> Maybe we should just cut a 2.3.3 release and wait another 30 > >>>>>> days (we also need to stabilize app-crypt/gkeys since it's > >>>>>> needed by emerge-webrsync now). =20 > >>>>> > >>>>> Wouldn't it be better to have a really working version of gkeys > >>>>> before it's stabilized? Like one that could be used without > >>>>> having to create custom configuration files and/or run it as > >>>>> root? =20 > >>>> > >>>> Well, gkeys stabilization is not really mandatory, since > >>>> emerge-webrsync has a --insecure option. =20 > >>> > >>> Why don't I/we work on whatever changes are needed to merge the > >>> meta-manifest code to both portage and gkeys. I'll push out > >>> another release. I also had some initial code that added gkeys > >>> use to verify the pkg Manifest file, but I don't know if that is > >>> needed still, the meta-manifest system will need to run a verify > >>> at the end of the sync. > >>> > >>> We'll have to poke Robin some more to get some new infra keys > >>> setup. > >>> > >>> If I have to, maybe I'll create some ansible scripts to run the > >>> dev seeds update on vulture, transfer it to my system to push > >>> --sign to api.g.o or break down and get Kristian to help me get > >>> key forwarding better setup so I can do it from vulture. =20 > >> > >> Sounds good, but I think we should cut a portage 2.3.3 release > >> before we make any more changes. Maybe do a release branch that > >> includes everything except the emerge-webrsync change. =20 > >=20 > > Let's just revert the emerge-webrsync patch, so we can tag a 2.3.3 > > release on the master branch. > > =20 >=20 > Will repoman be released with the same tag as well or is the portage > and repoman version not going to be syncronized? >=20 > Cheers, >=20 > Manuel >=20 they are semi-independent, so will only be synchronized when API changes force it to be. --=20 Brian Dolbec