On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 08:37 +0000, Stuart Herbert wrote: > On 11/28/06, Andrew Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You make it sound like releng doesn't care at all about non-desktop > > packages. > > That wasn't how it was meant. Was simply meant as a statement of > fact. Releng activities are currently exclusively desktop-oriented.
I'm sorry, but how the hell do you know? You are not a member of Release Engineering, and have *NO CLUE* what we do over there. What we release isn't the only thing we do. > Until that changes, releng snapshots aren't fit for the purpose of > being a non-moving tree, as far as servers are concerned. Luckily, I'm not asking you. Instead, I'm asking interested developers to assist us in making what we plan on doing much more viable. Feel free to sit over there and naysay until you're blue in the face. We'll be over here getting something accomplished via teamwork. > > > b) Release trees have a nasty habit of picking up last minute changes > > > (such as gcc 4.1) to suit the release, not stability. > > > > Gcc 4.1.1 wasn't a last minute change. > > I can't agree with you there. It doesn't matter how many months of > planning and work you guys put into getting gcc-4.1 fit for stable. > If you're doing it off in your own little corner of the world, and > then springing it on the rest of us just days before the release > happens, then to the much larger dev community, it comes as a last > minute change. Except it was announced before we even made the snapshot, and we worked with the toolchain guys to get it to happen and entirely with their blessing. Just because we didn't take the time out to stop and make sure you were personally comfortable with the change doesn't mean we didn't prepare for it and announce it. > If you're "testing the crap" out of something, but only in an > exclusively desktop-oriented way ... well, that can only really be > partial testing, can't it? Again, you don't know what you're talking about, so I'd really appreciate it if you just shut the hell up until you decide to get yourself informed on the facts. > There'll always be GLSA's to respond to. That's another issue that > needs to be handled w/ a slow-moving tree. Are you going to restrict > changes in the slow-moving tree only to changes against a GLSA? That's what we've said. > I honestly don't think you're ever going to get that out of Gentoo, > because of the lack of backporting. Can you live with a slower-moving > tree? Or do you personally really need a non-moving tree? > > If you really need a non-moving tree, I think you're better off with > RHES or Ubuntu. While I truly appreciate your ability to give your opinion, I don't care. As I said, I am working on this concept as an experiment. It is being done by Release Engineering. We aren't really *asking* anyone for their opinion. We're simply stating what we plan on working on and will be asking people who *want* to participate to do so. Anyone not interested in participating in this Release Engineering-driven project is welcome to completely ignore us, as we will them. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
