On Fri, 2004-08-13 at 14:58, William Hubbs wrote:
> I don't see why we need the yearly refreshes either.
> 
> I like the suggestion of making the names more descriptive in stead of using numbers.
> Fore example, default/linux/am64.
> Then, you might have default/linux/am64/gcc34.
> Suppose that you decide to make the default am64 profile use gcc 3.4.  All you have to do is merge the am64/gcc34 profile into the am64 profile.
> You could do this type of merging with any revision you want to become part of the default profile, and otherwise not change the default profile at all.
> 
> What do you think?

So how does a user know the profile has changed?  What happens to users
using the gcc34 profile?  What would this do to any of the proposed
"stable" portage tree incarnations?

I'm all for a profile for each release which *never* changes.  Additions
can be made as sub-profiles, but a profile never changes.  This way
things act exactly the same every time.  Consistency is a REQUIREMENT
for QA.

I think creating a profile for each release is very simple.  I've
created one myself for 2004.2 and I can tell you that it sure was a hard
3 minutes of my life... *grin*

Having a stable profile is a definite requirement for any stable
project.  Since we've been talking with the stable project guys, I think
we definitely should not be discussing doing the exact opposite of what
is needed to cooperate with them, especially on a separate list which
they might not be subscribed to...
-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering QA Manager/Games Developer
Gentoo Linux

Is your power animal a penguin?