El lun, 06-10-2008 a las 23:13 +0000, Duncan escribió:
> Jeremy Olexa <darkside@g.o> posted 48EA6FF2.8020201@g.o,
> excerpted below, on  Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:07:14 -0500:
> 
> > AFAIK, it is incorrect right now to exclude s390, arm, sh, etc on
> > stablereqs right now..But, I ask this question to the dev community:
> > "Why?" There are ~190 open bugs with s390 as assignee or on the CC list.
> > Does it *really* matter if these under-staffed "odd" arches have a
> > stable tree or not?
> 
> Having been an amd64 user back when it was much smaller, and having 
> followed the previous discussion on this here, including the mips -> 
> experimental move, yes, it does matter.  With the bugs there's at least 
> some info on a package and its stabilization potential when/if someone 
> gets around to doing something about it.  Without them, the job of 
> bringing them back to unsupported and then to full supported, if there's 
> suddenly a leap in interest, becomes much harder as there's that much 
> less info on what /was/ stable at one point, and on anything in the ~arch 
> versions that might need checked before they go stable again.
> 

I fully agree. I think bringing some understaffed arches back to ~arch
is an option, but should be avoided if possible.

I wonder how many of these 190 open bugs in s390 are actually bugs about
brokenness, and not just regular stabilizations...

And by the way, amd64 had a similar amount of open bugs by the end of
2007.

Regards,
-- 
Santiago Moisés Mola
Jabber: cooldwind@... | GPG: AAD203B5