From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8672 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2004 23:36:10 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 12 Aug 2004 23:36:10 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BvP7B-0002sn-BI for arch-gentoo-releng@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 23:36:09 +0000 Received: (qmail 27586 invoked by uid 89); 12 Aug 2004 23:36:08 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-releng-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail Reply-To: gentoo-releng@lists.gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-releng@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 9284 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2004 23:36:08 +0000 From: Jason Huebel Organization: Gentoo To: gentoo-releng@lists.gentoo.org Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:36:02 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.82 References: <200408111331.30552.jhuebel@gentoo.org> <200408121705.16986.jhuebel@gentoo.org> <1092352858.20370.5.camel@woot.uberdavis.com> In-Reply-To: <1092352858.20370.5.camel@woot.uberdavis.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1435651.DaUfKax26L"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200408121836.12316.jhuebel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-releng] Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: 2004.0 Profile Deprecated X-Archives-Salt: 53b06bd8-b939-4e3e-ae7c-77963a26456f X-Archives-Hash: e4558777c3fd12f59f0cac2e25023fe6 --nextPart1435651.DaUfKax26L Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday 12 August 2004 6:20 pm, John Davis wrote: > Precisely! When seemant and I first talked about the cascading profile > implementation, we had every intention of avoiding release specific > versioning scheme. AFAIK, this is still the case. I still think that > this is the best route to follow due to the fact that not much changes > between releases. If there are special cases (take xorg for example), we > can always make an exception to the rule. Maybe it would make more sense to have yearly refreshes of the profiles, wi= th=20 profile "revisions" during the year using -r#. For instance, 2004 would hav= e: default-linux/amd64/2004 (equivalent to the 2004.0 profile) default-linux/amd64/2004-r1 (equivalent to the 2004.2 profile) Then next year (even though it isn't strictly necessary), we could have: default-linux/amd64/2005 It would basically be the same as the last 2004 revision, but I can't think= of=20 a better major version number than using the year. Then we could have=20 revisions after that. Actually, we might even be able to do something like this: default-linux/amd64/2005/r0 default-linux/amd64/2005/r1 =2E.. and so on. Thoughts? =2D-=20 Jason Huebel Gentoo/amd64 Strategic Lead Gentoo Developer Relations/Recruiter GPG Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=3Dget&search=3D0x9BA9E230 "Do not weep; do not wax indignant. Understand." Baruch Spinoza (1632 - 1677) --nextPart1435651.DaUfKax26L Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBBG/7sbNgbbJup4jARAsPJAKCCJrByCwVEpOJ3SLT1veZkMaAjlwCfVda7 JalbOKkKANxIHzN8c8rqVIc= =yMMD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1435651.DaUfKax26L--