1 |
On Monday 05 September 2005 05:11, Stuart Herbert wrote: |
2 |
> I'd be more worried about the impact on users. From a user's point of |
3 |
> view, x86 is a fast-moving arch, where you can normally find an up to |
4 |
> date package, and where most of the major packages are actively and well |
5 |
> maintained by the package maintainers. The introduction of the x86 arch |
6 |
> team will, at some point, turn the x86 arch team into a bottleneck (just |
7 |
> like all the other arch teams already are), and the experience for our |
8 |
> users will change. Our challenge as a project is make sure that the |
9 |
> benefits of the x86 team outweigh the negatives in the right places, so |
10 |
> that we don't lose our users in the process. |
11 |
|
12 |
Somewhere in the previous thread, I read the (seemingly sarcastic) |
13 |
suggestion that all non-arch devs start working in overlays. This would |
14 |
seem to be a very good idea if the overlays could be made easily available |
15 |
via gensync. |
16 |
|
17 |
Having general ebuild devs work in overlays (perhaps shared overlays per |
18 |
herd?) rather the main tree would seem to be better for at least two |
19 |
reasons: |
20 |
|
21 |
* "Proper" arch testing by arch-devs (Dunno if this is valid, but other's |
22 |
are bringing it up in this thread, so... ;) |
23 |
* Users would select what areas in which the pace should be fast. This has |
24 |
the added benefit that mix of arch/~arch bugs that slip through a all |
25 |
~arch system would be picked up a lot more. |
26 |
|
27 |
-- |
28 |
Jason Stubbs |