| 1 |
On 07/25/14 15:28, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 2 |
> That is the reason for me thinking that maybe the way to go would be to |
| 3 |
> do the opposite -> keep only base-system and a few others stable and |
| 4 |
> drop stable for most of the rest. This big effort could be accomplished |
| 5 |
> in a week by other developers willing to help (like me) and would solve |
| 6 |
> the issue for the long term. I guess that is what HPPA team did in the |
| 7 |
> past and I think it's working pretty well for them (in summary, have a |
| 8 |
> stable tree they are able to keep stable). That will also help people in |
| 9 |
> ppc* teams to know that the remaining stabilization bugs, apart of being |
| 10 |
> much less, are important enough to deserve rapid attention, as opposed |
| 11 |
> to current situation that will have some important bugs mixed with tons |
| 12 |
> of stabilization requests of apps that got ppc stable keywords years ago |
| 13 |
> and are currently no so important. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Yes, please let's just do base system stable. I've been randomly taking |
| 17 |
care of ppc but nothing systematic. Its pretty spotty. But at the same |
| 18 |
time I don't like the idea of just loosing all the stabilization effort |
| 19 |
on the base system, so that might work best. Something to think about |
| 20 |
for mips too. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 25 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 26 |
E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
| 27 |
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
| 28 |
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |
Archives