| 1 |
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 01:30:59PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:09:55 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Markos Chandras |
| 6 |
> > <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > - s390 |
| 10 |
> > > - sh |
| 11 |
> > > - ia64 |
| 12 |
> > > - alpha |
| 13 |
> > > - m68k |
| 14 |
> > > - sparc |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > +many. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> ++many. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> If any of these arches considers themselves to be a major arch; they |
| 21 |
> need to speak up and let us know if reasonable, but then we also need |
| 22 |
> to ensure that we draw more manpower to such major arch. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I think we are looking at this problem the wrong way. Why not define |
| 25 |
what is needed to be a major arch and a minor arch (~arch only). Then |
| 26 |
drop a marjor arch to a minor arch if they don't meet the requirement. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
For example, we could define a major as having an arch lead, 3 active devs |
| 29 |
(commited to the cvs tree in the last xyz number of days), etc |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I've been trying to get more involved with ia64, sparc, ppc, ppc64 so my |
| 32 |
vote is to keep those arch as a major arch. I'd be willing to help out |
| 33 |
ago mark ebuilds stable but as others have pointed out he does such a good |
| 34 |
job, its hard to compete with him ;) |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Cheers, |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Jack Morgan |
| 41 |
Pub 4096R/761D8E0A 2010-09-13 Jack Morgan <jmorgan@g.o>> |
| 42 |
Fingerprint = DD42 EA48 D701 D520 C2CD 55BE BF53 C69B 761D 8E0A |
Archives