| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA512 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 08/06/2011 04:11 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
| 5 |
> On 05-08-2011 18:43, Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 6 |
>> On 08/05/2011 07:36 PM, Matt Turner wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Patrick Lauer |
| 8 |
>>> <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
>>>> So if you think slacking arches are a problem ... aquire a |
| 10 |
>>>> Mips or Sparc or whatever machine and get cracking. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
>>> Thank you. Yes, please do this. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
>>> I don't mean to go off topic, but every time I see a complaint |
| 15 |
>>> about "slacking arches" I wonder if the person realized that |
| 16 |
>>> almost all of the "slacking arch" teams are run almost entirely |
| 17 |
>>> by a single person, armin76. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
>>> Take a look at the number of commits that he has and then |
| 20 |
>>> complain about slacking. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
>> What are you talking about? Did I ever blame Armin76? Do you think |
| 23 |
>> that having a single person doing all the commits can justify your |
| 24 |
>> argument? A single person doing commits 24/7 is not a proof that |
| 25 |
>> an arch is in a good state. You have totally missed the point |
| 26 |
>> here. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Markos, |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> I'm sorry, but in my view, you and others have completely missed the |
| 31 |
> point when you ignore the issue with man power and resources to do |
| 32 |
> arch work or the relevance of it and focus only on "punishing" |
| 33 |
> "slacking arches". Having Raúl as the single or the de-facto single |
| 34 |
> maintainer for an arch is something that should worry us, but not to |
| 35 |
> call such an arch "slacking" or, worse, "dead". |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Oh come on Jorge. You know what I mean by slacking arches. I am not |
| 38 |
talking about punishing them. Maybe drop stable keywords or drop keyword |
| 39 |
from X package and shrink their tree so they can keep up with the load. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> One of the issues with the "slacking arches" topic is that people |
| 42 |
> tend to associate it with mips, alpha, sparc or some of the other |
| 43 |
> "exotic" arches. However, in one of the iterations about this topic, |
| 44 |
> someone put forth numbers that showed that amd64 was at the time one |
| 45 |
> of the worst "slacking arches". |
| 46 |
I did that but things got slightly better since then. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> This should be the arch more developers use daily and is likely the |
| 49 |
> one with more members (herd count). Also, one should remember the |
| 50 |
> time it takes to compile, test or debug an issue in a recent amd64 |
| 51 |
> system or an old / slow box with an "exotic arch" varies |
| 52 |
> substantially. Not to mention that the amount of testing done on |
| 53 |
> "exotic arches" varies substantially between projects. |
| 54 |
I am aware of the problems and this is way I want a solution. |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> In the last council, I've took the job of promoting some email |
| 57 |
> threads between arch teams, the council, trustees and infra to see |
| 58 |
> what we could do about it. Some of the issues were then opened on the |
| 59 |
> project ml. You are correct that there wasn't a "quick", "final" or |
| 60 |
> even "conclusive" decision, but I'll argue that we needed more debate |
| 61 |
> - including more interest and participation from the community. I do |
| 62 |
> think we had a good discussion. |
| 63 |
Yes, we discussed what was needed etc but I don't really think that |
| 64 |
anything changed since them. If not, then I apologize |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
> If the argument in the end boils down to how many arches Gentoo |
| 67 |
> supports and about leaving support for some arches or killing it so |
| 68 |
> that maintainers aren't "bogged down" by arches, I'll support arches |
| 69 |
> over maintainers. |
| 70 |
> |
| 71 |
I never said to completely drop these arches. When did I say that? I |
| 72 |
just want a more realistic approach on how well an arch is supported. |
| 73 |
Why you people are afraid to admit that we have problems? Having an arch |
| 74 |
with constantly >200 stabilization bugs open clearly proves that the |
| 75 |
manpower cannot handle the situation. |
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
ps: ++ to Raúl for his work. I hope he wont fed up with that in the |
| 78 |
future :) |
| 79 |
|
| 80 |
- -- |
| 81 |
Regards, |
| 82 |
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 |
| 83 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 84 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) |
| 85 |
|
| 86 |
iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJOPRCwAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCKIgP/A1ZAUKuUDA7yT0VVdpd/Dc3 |
| 87 |
7KeN5IJF+JV1Zg3f31DwdpWpARe4Vy4znRyvWXJVDjdSVzFZWpuSZbgcVr5fn/fp |
| 88 |
0xIo/5W8nQBhCC70fVy3XhhCgvFOumLNJj5L6isM/95UlDPPKa5FMzfqcvfFO3b9 |
| 89 |
p2HxEr+MaptebdeijwSGD/pYGD0ct0t0v/nmBiwzT5m+iC1cPL9JL3mtVle2E+RL |
| 90 |
7Cyx+PJylORC9xbNp4E0OGHGwjkv12OlhnHjXA7tLZk3teDg22W2IMDyRaXTwL6p |
| 91 |
sdEoDx1kq1AkEiJls70yO9nh5AGLrOpMgYr9LPo/aKauRy68aIR1tHHw+Dq0YDp6 |
| 92 |
IveAzXCGtWTCebWMfB7gInYkQ82sJr4nLViUP//EedkFIn624GtxjhkL+VXAwMME |
| 93 |
qbYq+n48f65E35FarDvV4sOTHrXvkO6/iVIRbmspQrw8Tje3V/2w9zBnRCP2DNKM |
| 94 |
LueiPAon9I3Z/Vs2AeBdtOtI2rqsAUdFffGbq9calk22u2+l3AJEoUUqdp2UISVs |
| 95 |
bsk2rNy9cO3+5xZnWWEeAebGhPYkMtFAgbmoxTp9Q6nhLBbgoAbWGZ+kEnYf6A6e |
| 96 |
oeMKX9z00nUIaA11FY+GpwVnFSCTD0g8K37MzfloFyMV/coOUJgLMa8aLOIQhmSM |
| 97 |
VN9pyMOwrmHZyE91Qv9Y |
| 98 |
=7xTL |
| 99 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives