| 1 |
On 22/08/2013 01:56, Michael Weber wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/21/2013 01:04 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 3 |
>> The manpower on these arches is below acceptable levels and they often |
| 4 |
>> block stabilizations |
| 5 |
>> for many months. This also causes troubles to developers trying to get |
| 6 |
>> rid of old versions of |
| 7 |
>> packages. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> I am CC'ing Mike and on this to draw his attention since he seems to |
| 10 |
>> be doing stabilizations and |
| 11 |
>> keywording on a few of them. Moreover, Agostino is also doing a lot of |
| 12 |
>> work on these arches. |
| 13 |
> Maybe we should fix this situation (find more stabilization guys) rather |
| 14 |
> than the usual twice a year small arches bashing. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Imho the situation is that agos intensive work displaced all the other |
| 17 |
> ones, or they at least rely on ago doing the work and loose focus. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
At one point before Ago came along, stabilisation of Qt was taking so |
| 21 |
long we had to start masking reverse dependencies for minor archs, so |
| 22 |
please don't blame Ago. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
(Please note I am not trying to point the finger at anyone, just trying |
| 25 |
to highlight the severity of the problem.) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I have also been told that for some archs, new hardware is no longer |
| 28 |
available. That would make this not a question of if, but a question of |
| 29 |
when. |
Archives