| 1 |
On 08/21/2013 01:04 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> - s390 |
| 9 |
> - sh |
| 10 |
> - ia64 |
| 11 |
> - alpha |
| 12 |
> - m68k |
| 13 |
> - sparc |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> The manpower on these arches is below acceptable levels and they often |
| 16 |
> block stabilizations |
| 17 |
> for many months. This also causes troubles to developers trying to get |
| 18 |
> rid of old versions of |
| 19 |
> packages. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I am CC'ing Mike and on this to draw his attention since he seems to |
| 22 |
> be doing stabilizations and |
| 23 |
> keywording on a few of them. Moreover, Agostino is also doing a lot of |
| 24 |
> work on these arches. |
| 25 |
> Consider what will happen if he ever goes MIA or decides to retire ;) |
| 26 |
> We will probably end up |
| 27 |
> with a pile of stabilization bugs like the good old days. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> In my opinion, having these arches be ~arch only, will improve the |
| 30 |
> overall user experience |
| 31 |
> since the arch teams will only have to test a single tree. It will |
| 32 |
> also help developers get rid of |
| 33 |
> old ebuilds and keep the portage tree healthy and reasonably updated. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> If I get enough positive feedback on this, I will propose this in the |
| 36 |
> next Council's agenda. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
+1 |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Even if I'm not directly concerned by those arches, I agree with your |
| 42 |
point and can see its benefits for both devs and users. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Cheers |
Archives