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 AD5FF1395E1 for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 22:55:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3AA61E0B69; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 22:55:27 +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 16451E0B62 for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 22:55:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.128.12.228] (unknown [100.42.98.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A289E341265 for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 22:55:25 +0000 (UTC) To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Zac Medico Subject: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-2.3.2 stable request? Message-ID: <2275c91d-8320-2876-6b4b-81e976fe9eee@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:55:23 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0 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: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 225cb16c-a0a2-4dbd-a67a-1d4f46c86ebd X-Archives-Hash: 3ce6482c6f4f7c781a7599c76a419ace 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? -- Thanks, Zac