| 1 |
tl;dr - I plan to file stabilization bugs without CC-ing arches first so |
| 2 |
that maintainers have chance to comment anyway. That'd still generate |
| 3 |
large amount of bugs, and I was mostly asking about that. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
On 11/21/11 1:14 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 6 |
> Are the cited advances relevant for all stable arches, for the "major |
| 7 |
> ones", or only for one of them? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
My script has checked for x86 and amd64, but I could easily adapt it to |
| 10 |
check for more. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> I would like to avoid the situation that we all file stable requests |
| 13 |
> like mad and end up with all-but-one swamped arch teams and a |
| 14 |
> neverending list of open stabilization bugs waiting for the last |
| 15 |
> arch. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Right. My plan for now was to only CC x86 and amd64. I'm afraid other |
| 18 |
archs wouldn't cope with the load and would be just very annoyed about |
| 19 |
doing stabilizations for minor or revision bumps. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Note that I've only started thinking about this after my |
| 22 |
batch-stabilization workflow proved to be effective. I think we can deal |
| 23 |
with more stabilization bugs now, and that wouldn't be the case a few |
| 24 |
months ago (we also have more ATs now). |
Archives