1 |
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:02:16 -0500 |
2 |
Joseph Jezak <josejx@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Ben de Groot wrote: |
5 |
> > What about ppc64? They are MONTHS behind on stabilization, |
6 |
> > even for security bugs (see bug 281821 for example). The Qt team |
7 |
> > feels this is no longer acceptable. We propose that any arch that |
8 |
> > can't keep up will be demoted to experimental status. |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> ppc is also fairly far behind (much thanks to nixnut for keeping us |
12 |
> going!). Part of the problem is that when I do get time to catch up, |
13 |
> we're so buried in bugs, it's time consuming just to triage and figure |
14 |
> out what to do next, and even to remember where I left off last. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> I would really help if there were better communication about what bugs |
17 |
> absolutely need to be done ASAP and what can slide by for now. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> That said, please be a bit more patient with us, we just don't have the |
20 |
> manpower to fix every single keywording bug immediately. |
21 |
|
22 |
Is there any interest in allowing certain packages to be stabilized by the |
23 |
maintainer without going through the arch teams? I always feel guilty when i |
24 |
file stabilization bugs for app-doc pkgs. |
25 |
|
26 |
|
27 |
-- |
28 |
fonts, Character is what you are in the dark. |
29 |
gcc-porting, |
30 |
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |