On 21/02/2011 00:11, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Markos Chandras<hwoar...@gentoo.org> schrieb:
My suggestion, as I said to fosdem, is to freeze, or take a
snapshot if you like, of the current tree, stabilize what you
need to stabilize, test the whole tree ( at least compile wise )
for a couple of weeks and then replace the existing stable tree.
hmm, would it make sense to add a new masking for the testing
tree, so users could decide which stability grade vs they wish ?
or perhaps use overlays for that ?
For example, I'd like to have the critical packages (everything
that's needed to bootup and do basic remote maintenance) from
the new frozen-stable tree, but other things should stay as
they are.
Perhaps this is an argument for a git based portage tree? Master can
stay as the current status quo and anyone who wants to can maintain a
branch or fork which points to a slightly different subset of the tree?
I doubt we actually have the capacity to make this work, but it would at
least in theory be cool to have a (weekly/monthly) branch which gets
cut, run through a tinderbox in various forms and then pushed? Or if
someone wants to maintain a redhat style antique set of packages where
the tree is largely held back to 2005 state with only bug fixes and
essential packages bumped?
Just thinking...
Ed W
