Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Joseph Jezak <josejx@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:03:20
Message-Id: 4AF1EBD8.4020502@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations by Ben de Groot
1 Ben de Groot wrote:
2 > What about ppc64? They are MONTHS behind on stabilization,
3 > even for security bugs (see bug 281821 for example). The Qt team
4 > feels this is no longer acceptable. We propose that any arch that
5 > can't keep up will be demoted to experimental status.
6 >
7 >
8 ppc is also fairly far behind (much thanks to nixnut for keeping us
9 going!). Part of the problem is that when I do get time to catch up,
10 we're so buried in bugs, it's time consuming just to triage and figure
11 out what to do next, and even to remember where I left off last.
12
13 I would really help if there were better communication about what bugs
14 absolutely need to be done ASAP and what can slide by for now.
15
16 That said, please be a bit more patient with us, we just don't have the
17 manpower to fix every single keywording bug immediately.
18
19 -Joe

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o>
[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations Christian Faulhammer <fauli@g.o>