| 1 |
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 21:52:47 -0600 |
| 2 |
Steev Klimaszewski <steev@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> The idea moves the work around, it doesn't lessen the workload at all. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
It is an idea to solve your actual problem, which isn't workload. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> You can easily find 7 people who have an armv7, and even v6, since the |
| 9 |
> rpi is quite popular. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
They are easier to find than someone that has everything. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Getting them into the arch team and willing to run stable and |
| 14 |
> actually test programs is a whole other story, which lead to you |
| 15 |
> saying: |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> "People that have certain architectures can just add themselves, no |
| 18 |
> extra work again." |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Which is for people already on the arm arch; consider the context you |
| 21 |
quote this from, rather than assuming what is not explicitly stated. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> What you've thrown out as a possible solution is akin to taking a pile |
| 24 |
> of peas on the plate and moving them around the plate so that the pile |
| 25 |
> doesn't look so big. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
In other words, using separation to organize them properly. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> It doesn't change the amount of work, but you do need to look in more |
| 30 |
> places for the work. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Which you can collect back into one place. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> Finding people with the hardware is the main issue, and I think I |
| 35 |
> mentioned before, some people are simply unwilling to invest in |
| 36 |
> "slow" hardware, so we have to rely on the people who DO have it. |
| 37 |
> And if that means things take longer to stable, well, why is that an |
| 38 |
> issue? Stable is supposed to be that - stable. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
That is because you only look for people that have all the hardware. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> > > if you aren't willing to put in the work, don't expect others to. |
| 43 |
> > |
| 44 |
> > If you are unwilling to work towards solutions, don't expect others |
| 45 |
> > to. |
| 46 |
> > |
| 47 |
> > > And yes, I see what you mean now re: my reply seeming off - it |
| 48 |
> > > would seem when I hit group reply, for some reason, Evolution is |
| 49 |
> > > putting Peter Stuge into the CC, and not Tom Wijsman (despite |
| 50 |
> > > hitting group reply from your email. Maybe there should have |
| 51 |
> > > been more testing of Gnome 3.8 before it was stabled on x86... |
| 52 |
> > |
| 53 |
> > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html |
| 54 |
> > http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html |
| 55 |
> > |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> I don't care of "reply to" is considered harmful, |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
It however caused problems with your e-mail. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
> I care that |
| 62 |
> something that worked with the previous stable is suddenly not |
| 63 |
> working with the new stable. It obviously shows that it wasn't |
| 64 |
> tested properly, and yet was marked stable. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
Which is your actual problem that we are trying to solve here. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
> So, as QA, shouldn't you be doing something about that, rather than |
| 69 |
> pointing to some URLs on the web, telling me I'm in the wrong for |
| 70 |
> using the option that is supposed to handle that properly in my |
| 71 |
> stable software? |
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
The problem lies in a different place than the software itself. |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
-- |
| 76 |
With kind regards, |
| 77 |
|
| 78 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 79 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 80 |
|
| 81 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 82 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 83 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives