Apparently, though unproven, at 16:30 on Sunday 24 October 2010, Mike Edenfield did opine thusly:
> On 10/23/2010 5:03 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 02:50:26 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > >>> You're mixing two different definitions of stable. Portage 2.2 is > >>> certainly reliable, but it is anything but stable with a new version > >>> coming out every day at the moment,. > >> > >> I'm waiting for tomorrow when my regularly scheduled portage update > >> hits _rc100. > > > > Well, it hasn't happened yet. A day without a portage update, a rare > > thing these days. > > > > Maybe someone decided that Gentoo is not Debian and 99 release candidates > > should be enough for a bunch of python scripts. > > Looks like someone agrees with you: > > [ebuild U ] sys-apps/portage-2.2.0_alpha1 [2.2_rc91] > > Although, perhaps I'm missing something but doesn't alpha > come *before* release candidate? :) Yes, but: 2.2.0_alpha1 comes *after* 2.2_rc99 -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
