[arch-dev-public] we want to give x86_64 a new direction

[Jason Chu]

On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 01:16:07PM +0300, Roman Kyrylych wrote:
> 2007/5/13, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>:
> > On 5/12/07, Andreas Radke <a.radke at arcor.de> wrote:
> > > forcing us into the same scm tree makes us a bit unflexible. so i would
> > > prefer to have an own tree back again. but i could also imagine to keep
> > > one common scm where we just "tag" our versions a bit behind i686.
> >
> > I don't see a problem with the updates lagging behind.  You guys do
> > have your own CVS tags so it should affect either side.  If we tag
> > something 'CURRENT', the db update scripts check only that tag - the
> > 64bit scripts check only 'CURRENT-64'
> >
> > As far as I can tell, we should be able to keep everything exactly as
> > is, and you guys just do your updates slower than us - that's not a
> > big deal to me at all.

I'm fine with that, I thought that you guys wanted to start doing a lot
more than that.  I would like to note that this isn't exactly something
that i686 could do.  If x86_64 waits for all the bugs from i686 to get
cleaned up, i686 wouldn't have anyone to wait for ;)

> Hm...
> The current SVN structure is:
> /<packagename>/trunk
> /<packagename>/repos/<reponame>
> Will slower updates fit this as well?
> Something like /<packagename>/branches/x86_64 ?

No, all you do is not svnmerge trunk into repos/{current, extra}-64 as often.

> > > if you are fine with that i want to bring up 2 new packagers as a first
> > > step.
> >
> > Sounds good to me.
> 
> sure, it's very good.

Yup, sounds fine.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20070513/2bca37b6/attachment.pgp>