Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o>
Subject: Re: Policy for late/slow stabilizations
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 17:45:40 +0200
On 06/27/10 17:04, Markos Chandras wrote:
[snip]
> Whilst I do understand that these arches are understaffed and they can't keep
> up with the increased stabilization load like x86/amd64 do, I still
> think that slow stabilization leads to an obsolete stable tree which I
> doesn't make sense to me after all.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 

I see two scenarios - either we get the "slow" arches enough cpu- and
manpower, or we remove their stable keywords.

If possible I think we should try to keep stable keywords. So how can we
help? I'm not sure how I could help e.g. PPC - I don't have any hardware
I can test on, and I'm not aware of remotely accessible dev boxen.

So - how can we improve this situation?


Replies:
Re: Policy for late/slow stabilizations
-- Tony \"Chainsaw\" Vroon
References:
Policy for late/slow stabilizations
-- Markos Chandras
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Policy for late/slow stabilizations
Next by thread:
Re: Policy for late/slow stabilizations
Previous by date:
Policy for late/slow stabilizations
Next by date:
Re: Policy for late/slow stabilizations


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.