On 11/28/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I have said, I've mentioned several times the idea of doing a "release tree" to go along with each release.
The release tree is not the basis for this. a) Releases (and the releng work that goes into it) are exclusively desktop-oriented. b) Release trees have a nasty habit of picking up last minute changes (such as gcc 4.1) to suit the release, not stability.
No version changes on any packages, except those which are necessary due to a security violation, or a vulnerable package's dependencies.
Tying a minimal-b0rkage tree to the arbitrary schedule of our releases does not serve all of our users. We are back to the same arguments we had when I said that the Seeds project would have to have its own independent release schedules :( Thereś little merit in us creating mostly stagnant trees. Other Linux distros are already very good at doing that - far better than we will be at it - because they have advantages such as a paid workforce and more upstream developers on their books. A minimal-b0rkage tree needs to move to reflect the packages that we believe our users should be using for a stable environment. Best regards, Stu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
