[mythtv-users] FAO Myth distro package maintainers.

[David]

yep - I missed it completely - this was pure coincidence!
(hell, look at the time stamps and allow for delivery and a 5 minute 
pop-poll-cycle - I couldn't type that much in that time anyway!)

I suggest no-one reply to this and followups go to Jarod's thread 
(though I think some of my points are about the *use* of a stable branch 
for packagers)

David

Brad Benson wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:40:57 +0000, David <myth at dgreaves.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>I've been thinking about Myth's stability.
>>
>>Generally the releases are pretty good (!) :)
>>
>>However, occasionally things happen (0.15.1, the nfs file close problem
>>in 0.16, the ww.weather.com issue)
>>ie right now I'd like to see 0.17.1 include a fix for the weather
>>problem rather than wait until 0.18 (or hacking hosts/xml)
>>(Well, truth be told, I'm still on 0.16 so I'd have have liked an
>>nfs-close patch release...)
>>
>>The problem with this is that the fix for weather is mixed in with a
>>load of other CVS changes so it's hard to create a 0.17.1
>>
>>I was wondering whether a leaf could be taken out of the linux kernel's
>>recent 'stable' approach?
>>Essentially gather a set of patches together that all the maintainers
>>can use to release 'stable' upgrades?
>>All distro packagers could submit/veto patches... that kind of thing.
>>
>>These patches would offer no new features but would fix simple bugs. In
>>general they'd have been applied to CVS.
>>Maybe not all bugs - some would be too intrusive, the fix may be CVS
>>only etc etc.
>>
>>The objective being that an 'upgrade' to one of these point/patch
>>releases would be a very safe, 5 minute job with (almost!) zero risk of
>>screwing up. Any patch that doesn't meet these criteria could be vetoed.
>>Users could then safely be told to upgrade to a point/patch release
>>whenever a new one was released (hey, by version 0.20, maybe that could
>>be (semi-)automatic a la "MS automatic updates")
>>
>>I was also wondering whether this should be agreed amongst the distro
>>maintainers (it'd be nice if all of them using the same subversion were
>>based on at least the same source code)
>>
>>Also, I'd stress that (unless they want it to be) this would not be an
>>official developer supported thing - more a package maintainer applying
>>a bug for his customers - essentially the same as Debian does in
>>applying patches to the package and then forwarding them upstream.
>>
>>Maybe it would be worth considering a myth-packagers mail list to
>>promote some consistency amongst the packages?
>>
>>David
>>PS Although I used 0.17.1 as an example, I think that Isaac 'owns' that
>>numbering format - I'd suggest a suffix -p1, -p2 etc
>>But I'd like all the distros to mean the same thing.
>>_______________________________________________
>>mythtv-users mailing list
>>mythtv-users at mythtv.org
>>http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Actually, there has been a discussion going on in the -dev list about
>this for the past few days.  It has finally been determined that,
>starting with the 0.18 release, a stable branch of the cvs tree will
>be maintained (for only the latest release) for the express purpose of
>allowing bugfixes (but no new features) to be rolled into point
>releases so that users will be able to upgrade after a release without
>having to use current cvs or wait for the next full release.
>
>Thanks go out to Jarod Wilson for volunteering to maintain the stable
>branch and making this possible.
>
>  
>