-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 05-08-2011 18:43, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 08/05/2011 07:36 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Patrick Lauer
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> So if you think slacking arches are a problem ... aquire a Mips
>>> or Sparc or whatever machine and get cracking.
>> Thank you. Yes, please do this.
>> I don't mean to go off topic, but every time I see a complaint
>> about "slacking arches" I wonder if the person realized that almost
>> all of the "slacking arch" teams are run almost entirely by a
>> single person, armin76.
>> Take a look at the number of commits that he has and then complain
>> about slacking.
> What are you talking about? Did I ever blame Armin76? Do you think
> that having a single person doing all the commits can justify your
> argument? A single person doing commits 24/7 is not a proof that an
> arch is in a good state. You have totally missed the point here.
I'm sorry, but in my view, you and others have completely missed the
point when you ignore the issue with man power and resources to do arch
work or the relevance of it and focus only on "punishing" "slacking arches".
Having Raúl as the single or the de-facto single maintainer for an arch
is something that should worry us, but not to call such an arch
"slacking" or, worse, "dead".
One of the issues with the "slacking arches" topic is that people tend
to associate it with mips, alpha, sparc or some of the other "exotic"
arches. However, in one of the iterations about this topic, someone put
forth numbers that showed that amd64 was at the time one of the worst
"slacking arches". This should be the arch more developers use daily and
is likely the one with more members (herd count). Also, one should
remember the time it takes to compile, test or debug an issue in a
recent amd64 system or an old / slow box with an "exotic arch" varies
substantially. Not to mention that the amount of testing done on "exotic
arches" varies substantially between projects.
In the last council, I've took the job of promoting some email threads
between arch teams, the council, trustees and infra to see what we could
do about it. Some of the issues were then opened on the project ml. You
are correct that there wasn't a "quick", "final" or even "conclusive"
decision, but I'll argue that we needed more debate - including more
interest and participation from the community. I do think we had a good
This issue, including the attempt to get more hardware and special
deals, is still being worked on, though. Mostly through Raúl's
"persistance", infra has discussed some specs for boxes and there's a
proposal being worked on with Lance for hosting a ganeti cluster at OSUOSL.
If the argument in the end boils down to how many arches Gentoo supports
and about leaving support for some arches or killing it so that
maintainers aren't "bogged down" by arches, I'll support arches over
Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----