Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
stable / moderate / bleeding edge ????
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

 
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
syadnom
Guru
Guru


Joined: 09 May 2002
Posts: 531

PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2002 5:34 am    Post subject: stable / moderate / bleeding edge ???? Reply with quote

i suggest adding an option to portage to allow people to use a preset amount of time a package has been in the available portage tree before it will be considered for merging.

ex:

emerge -L=0/1/2 packagename

0 would be bleeding edge, any and all released packages are available immediately
1 would be moderate, so packages must wait 1 week before they are mergable
2 would be a two week wait.

after a package has been available for two weeks, most if not all bugs related to the ebuild are fixed for the most part. while one week is a bit more safe, and zero is bleeding edge, just as the current gentoo is.

this would also keep gentoo from haveing the same problems as debian, where the stable debian is ancient, though very stable :)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
delta407
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 2876
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2002 7:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This was addressed in a recent interview with Daniel Robbins.

Quote:
The current breakneck pace of Gentoo development can sometimes cause problems with broken packages, such as when a package was updated without first working out the little kinks. Are there any plans to split things into a "stable/unstable" branch?

Before we consider a stable/unstable split, we're going to do everything we can to improve the quality of our single unified tree. If, after pulling out the stops, we find that a stable/unstable branch is necessary, then we'll do it. And by "it", I don't mean a utable/unstable split like Debian, but like NetBSD who sync up their stable and unstable trees every couple of weeks (so I hear.)

Otherwise, a stable/unstable split just becomes a means to accomodate sloppy developers. Our first step to improve quality is to do some serious QA.

_________________
I don't believe in witty sigs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
syadnom
Guru
Guru


Joined: 09 May 2002
Posts: 531

PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2002 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i also read this interview, but im not asking for a seperate "stable" tree, just a delay to give packages time to stablize in the exsiting tree. ebuilds that come out with bugs are certainly fixed after a few weeks, making them reasonably more stable than when they first came out. simply date the introduction into the portage tree and modify emerge to look at the data and determin which packages are mergable based on this time and the lever users decide they want.

i feel that a seperate "stable" tree will slow down gentoo's advancement, and i would prefer not to go that route until their is significant reason. though i do feel that my idea of a simple waiting period for new packages to "cool off" and allow the bugs to be fixed, is a good one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
abhishek
Retired Dev
Retired Dev


Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 393
Location: Los Angeles, CA

PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2002 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

syadnom wrote:
i also read this interview, but im not asking for a seperate "stable" tree, just a delay to give packages time to stablize in the exsiting tree. ebuilds that come out with bugs are certainly fixed after a few weeks, making them reasonably more stable than when they first came out. simply date the introduction into the portage tree and modify emerge to look at the data and determin which packages are mergable based on this time and the lever users decide they want.

I thought that is what he was saying. Two trees synced every few weeks, and new stuff would go in unstable till its synced into stable. Maybe i miread the interview though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hypnos
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 18 Jul 2002
Posts: 2889
Location: Omnipresent

PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2002 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

syadnom wrote:
i feel that a seperate "stable" tree will slow down gentoo's advancement, and i would prefer not to go that route until their is significant reason. though i do feel that my idea of a simple waiting period for new packages to "cool off" and allow the bugs to be fixed, is a good one.


Isn't this what the package mask is for?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
syadnom
Guru
Guru


Joined: 09 May 2002
Posts: 531

PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2002 6:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hypnos: package.mask is to block alpha/beta level packages or packages that have known issues or have had zero or little testing.

the more time a package is in the available portage tree unmasked, the more stable that package becomes as the "bleeding edge" people find most if not all the problems with that package and their gentoo systems.

data_the_android :
he was talking about having two trees merged every few weeks or so, but im saying only have one tree, the portage tree contains older versions of packages as well as the newer versions. example:

when kde 3.0 came out, kde2.2.2 was(and still is) available. when users set their level to -2 for stable, emerge would ignore kde3.0 for two weeks, -1 would wait a week, and -0 is current, and would emerge kde3.0 the same day it was introducted to portage. so you have but ONE portage tree and do not have to significantly alter portage, or make a second portage tree. just one nice portage tree that had provisions for multiple levels of currency for packages.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
delta407
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 2876
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2002 3:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Please re-read the quote. The intention of Daniel Robbins seems rather clear.

Quote:
Before we consider a stable/unstable split, we're going to do everything we can to improve the quality of our single unified tree. ... Otherwise, a stable/unstable split just becomes a means to accomodate sloppy developers. Our first step to improve quality is to do some serious QA.

_________________
I don't believe in witty sigs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
syadnom
Guru
Guru


Joined: 09 May 2002
Posts: 531

PostPosted: Tue Aug 06, 2002 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

delta,
is your point that Robbins thinks that the current tree needs cleaned up and that packages should be tested more and should not even enter the main portage tree until they are of very good quality?

i see this, purhaps my intentions are not clear. i dont want to alter the current portage release system, i want to make a "stable" options to make gentoo seem like a more viable distro AND keep the bleeding edgyness(real word??) available as well. i want to make portage happy for everyone, even people who like getting early early versions of packages via emerge.

i see what Robbins said as a way to improve gentoo's overall quality but NOT accomidate those bleeding edge people, rather making them do cvs or something to get these early packages.

i hope i am getting my point accross.

i do agree that portage needs improved, im just on the other side of the line on how to do it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum