Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Arch testers need themselves an IRC channel so I can love them more
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 13:16:40
Message-Id: CAGfcS_kMo7zZzXjPvvM-yZA_6SuC9z6=mDJ6NH0ZefKbsuvp9A@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Arch testers need themselves an IRC channel so I can love them more by Kent Fredric
1 On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o> wrote:
2 >
3 > As such, I believe Arch Testers should have themselves an IRC channel,
4 > where Arch testers are OP, and membership of arch testers is voluntary
5 > ( but encouraged ).
6 >
7
8 The history here is that ATs typically hung out in the arch channels
9 themselves, like #gentoo-amd64.
10
11 Back in the day when the arches were new, there was a lot of general
12 activity in these channels around adapting packages/etc. For the more
13 minor arches it may still be that way. The ATs were viewed as just
14 another part of that. Non-dev ATs were typically given at least voice
15 in these channels. Back in those days the arch leads were also fairly
16 active positions. Different arches sometimes had different policies
17 on the role of ATs, and for non-dev ATs there was close coordination
18 since a dev would need to make the commits.
19
20 These days upstream is a lot more attentive to the more popular archs
21 (IMO), so there isn't as much widespread patching/porting/etc going
22 on. I think this is part of what has led to the drop in arch team
23 activity, and AT activity as well (nobody is
24 recruiting/encouraging/etc them).
25
26 I'm not trying to dismiss your suggestion. I just wanted to point out
27 that ATs do actually have a place of sorts right now other than -dev.
28 They just don't have one place across all arches. Maybe that should
29 change, maybe not. I'd be interested in the thoughts of the ATs
30 themselves.
31
32 --
33 Rich