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 5FBC41395E1 for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 20:53:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2AEDEE0B31; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 20:53:05 +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 073D7E0B2C for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 20:53:04 +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 1FDE0340F27; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 20:53:04 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-2.3.2 stable request? To: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= References: <2275c91d-8320-2876-6b4b-81e976fe9eee@gentoo.org> <20161104131422.585a1e73.dolsen@gentoo.org> <20161104214301.720543d2.mgorny@gentoo.org> Cc: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Zac Medico Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:53:02 -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 In-Reply-To: <20161104214301.720543d2.mgorny@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: c138c096-3159-4049-9ed9-2393d8408d3d X-Archives-Hash: 284c22bb3ef0140070641e662352976e On 11/04/2016 01:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:19:39 -0700 > Zac Medico wrote: > >> On 11/04/2016 01:14 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: >>> 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? >>> >> >> 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). > > 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? Well, gkeys stabilization is not really mandatory, since emerge-webrsync has a --insecure option. -- Thanks, Zac