Roy Marples wrote: > On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 12:15 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote: >> Roy Marples wrote: >>> This is just a heads up for getting baselayout-2 stable. Next week I >>> plan to put baselayout-2.0.0_rc1 into the tree without any keywords and >>> it will be removed from package.mask (keeping the current alphas masked >>> though). Arch teams will then be pinged on a bug to keyword >>> baselayout-2. >> You should find someone from the GDP to write some user migration docs. > > Good idea. Any volunteers?
(GDP): you give us the info, we'll document it for you. Or I will at least. Of equal concern to me, however are a few issues: 1) How will stabilization work? Is it a forced upgrade from stable 1.x to 2.x, or can it be slotted? 2) It will be completely unmanageable to have more than one set of baselayout instructions in the handbook & other docs, so there definitely is a need for the migration doc. 3) How long will 1.x be kept stable? (This affects how long the old instructions are in the handbooks etc.) 4) What baselayout will be used in the next release? (Maybe that's more of a releng question.) 5) Do you have a rough estimate (month, 3 weeks, 5 weeks, what?) on when the first arches might be stabilizing 2.x? This is all from the GDP's perspective, almost none of it is of interest to me as a user; I expect this sh** to work just as well as baselayout-1.x when I hit the upgrade myself. :) Documenting this will be a major arsepain--er, effort--since baselayout 1.x directions are already mixed in so well with pretty much every doc we have. I'm not at all looking forward to fixing the docs when the time comes, but I will do it provided I get to borrow your brain for a good long time. :)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
