Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Re: Refactoring of emerge code

["m h" <sesquile@gmail.com>]

On 5/9/06, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> m h posted <e36b84ee0605082138t6be6ef5fk254a5f5e843b5f41@mail.gmail.com>,
> excerpted below,  on Mon, 08 May 2006 21:38:49 -0700:
>
> > hat is the status of my patches?  I'm assumming that they are
> > rejected...  I'm curious the know the reason.   If the plan is to
> > migrate to a new improved version of portage (sooner rather than
> > later), then maybe I'll try to help out Brian with his efforts.
>
> I wouldn't assume that at this point.  You just provided them what, a
> couple days ago, right?

Yep, just a couple of days.

>
> On bug reports and the like, two weeks before a response isn't unusual.
> You have a couple preliminary responses here already.  I'd not even
> /start/ to get antsy for two weeks, and wouldn't consider a "bump" request
> for another week after that, anyway.

I guess my concern was that there was discussion of them being tested
in IRC and I never heard any feedback from that.

My other concern is that they will get lost in the ether.  (Since new
rcs seems to be coming out now).

>
> Also note that trunk is frozen.  Bug fixes only until 2.1 is split off to
> stabilize.  I'd not expect the patches to get in until trunk thaws again,
> for 2.2 or whatever.  That means there's no immediate hurry on dealing
> with the patches, and that most of the focus ATM is on bugfixes for 2.1,
> in ordered to get the -rcs out and then the release, and get it tested and
> fully stabilized for 2006.1, now set for July, which given a 30 day
> stabilization means we need to get thru the -rcs and to release preferably
> by June first or so.  I do /not/ expect your patches to get into 2.1.  You
> are at least a week to 10 days too late for that.

Fair enough, if the trunk is frozen, I wish that would have been
indicated to me.  No one has said that yet.  The patches don't add any
functionality per se, but could be seen as bug fixes for
sloppy/extraneous code ;)

Again, this isn't supposed to be taken in the wrong way.  I'm coming
from the point of view of a lurker of normal gentoo (and
user/psuedo-dev of the prefix branch (which is based on 2.1))  I
appreciate the clarification you've provided Duncan.  Again, if 2.1 is
just throw-away code, then perhaps code cleanup refactoring is a waste
of effort, but I don't think it is....

-matt

-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list