From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15649 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2004 14:49:34 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 13 Aug 2004 14:49:34 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BvdN6-00073j-US for arch-gentoo-releng@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:49:33 +0000 Received: (qmail 8698 invoked by uid 89); 13 Aug 2004 14:49:32 +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 21492 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2004 14:49:31 +0000 From: Jason Huebel Organization: Gentoo To: gentoo-releng@lists.gentoo.org Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 09:49:34 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.82 References: <200408111331.30552.jhuebel@gentoo.org> <1092375494.17392.1.camel@sephora> <1092406829.30635.37.camel@woot.uberdavis.com> In-Reply-To: <1092406829.30635.37.camel@woot.uberdavis.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1127928.Jnu4LGg8Nv"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200408130949.40550.jhuebel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-releng] Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: 2004.0 Profile Deprecated X-Archives-Salt: 5795ca65-ac62-4611-816f-2cae6aeb6001 X-Archives-Hash: 813acb081e6791087b9c16767466f56e --nextPart1127928.Jnu4LGg8Nv Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Friday 13 August 2004 9:20 am, John Davis wrote: > On Fri, 2004-08-13 at 01:38, Seemant Kulleen wrote: > > you know, this maybe silly, but I do kind of like not having version > > numbers at all, and maybe making the profile names more descriptive > > > > so in the amd64 profile, you'd have gcc34, for example > > and in all of them, we could have xfree and xorg profiles. > > Thoughts? > > I could see either way working. The nice thing about your proposal is > that it cuts all of the bloat associated with version numbering. The > only con that I can see is that it does not offer a standardized way of > marking profile revisions like jhuebel's does (-r1, -r2, no matter what > the arch or the change). > > Since this is a good comment, I am forwarding it to the list ;) This is my concern. It seems to me that we still really need to hold on to= =20 some type of versioning scheme that indicates a progression over time. I'll just leave it at that. I just wanted to indicate my agreement... :-) =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) --nextPart1127928.Jnu4LGg8Nv Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBBHNUEbNgbbJup4jARAneKAJ0cITKAffaNp82M/FOEFtk0fTY3CQCcDvzw QrG1PsfkxbJnKzQTrRSWOks= =cmWD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1127928.Jnu4LGg8Nv--