| 1 |
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 11:44:07 -0400 |
| 2 |
"Thomas Cort" <linuxgeek@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 10/4/06, Kevin F. Quinn <kevquinn@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 09:41:45 -0400 |
| 6 |
> > Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> > My view is that while they're being actively supported, there's no |
| 9 |
> > reason to remove them. Granted their mostly SpanKY's babies, but so |
| 10 |
> > what? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> My view is that currently we cannot offer the same level of support |
| 13 |
> for the minority arches as the majority arches because we don't have |
| 14 |
> enough people involved. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
We don't need to. Gentoo isn't just one single thing, and I see no |
| 17 |
reason to require that all projects and arches offer the same level of |
| 18 |
support. Each project and arch can make their own determination about |
| 19 |
what level of support they can and will offer. Embedded users, for |
| 20 |
example, are generally more technically-oriented to start with so need |
| 21 |
far less support than, say, non-technical x86 users. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> I think that spreading the developers too thin |
| 24 |
> leads to conflict and burnout. Look at NetBSD and debian. They are |
| 25 |
> trying to be everything for everyone. How is that working for them, |
| 26 |
> how is it working for us? I think we should be more focused, but |
| 27 |
> that's just my opinion. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Minority arches don't affect devs who aren't interested in them, so |
| 30 |
they have no impact on how spread out the developers are. Effectively |
| 31 |
you're saying that those involved in the minority arches should stop |
| 32 |
messing about with that and commit all their Gentoo time to mainline |
| 33 |
activities, which is obviously not sensible. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Kevin F. Quinn |
Archives