| 1 |
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 08:15:18 +0100 (MET) |
| 2 |
Christian Faulhammer <opfer@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org>: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:17:35 +0100 (MET) Christian Faulhammer |
| 7 |
> > <opfer@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
> > | As we all notice from time to time, amd64 team is lacking behind a |
| 9 |
> > | bit, due to various reasons. a) manpower, b) a lot of keywording. |
| 10 |
> > | Java team asked arch teams if they object when Java team marks |
| 11 |
> > stable | generation-2 ebuilds on their own, due to the long time it |
| 12 |
> > takes and | to the amount of ebuilds to be stabilised. |
| 13 |
> > | So, maybe we can discuss here another helping hand for amd64. Devs |
| 14 |
> > | that work with a given software (not necessarily the maintainer) on |
| 15 |
> > | amd64 architecture and when there is a keywording bug open, then |
| 16 |
> > said | devs can keyword the ebuild. For a short period of time this |
| 17 |
> > could be | allowed to all devs. |
| 18 |
> > | Any objections? |
| 19 |
> > Why not just extend the amd64 team to include people who will only |
| 20 |
> > work on Java stuff? Other arch teams have no problems with developers |
| 21 |
> > being onboard only for a few particular packages. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Because it was meant for every package and I only talk about |
| 24 |
> keywording ~amd64, not stabling. The latter is handled by the team in |
| 25 |
> a timely manner, but keywording is put aside (it leads to even more |
| 26 |
> stabling, once it is keyworded). Java was only mentioned, as they came |
| 27 |
> up with an idea to help amd64 in special and arch teams in general. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
AFAIK that has been the (unofficial?) policy of the AMD64 team for as long as I can remember. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Marius |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives