Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 19:54:26
Message-Id: 20100627195542.GA2125@Mystical
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations by "Tony \\\"Chainsaw\\\" Vroon"
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 07:37:39PM +0100, Tony Chainsaw Vroon wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 18:04 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote: > > As many of you have already noticed, there are some arches that are quite > > slow on stabilizations. This leads to deprecated stabilizations e.g a > > package is stabilized after 60 days which makes that version of > > the specific package obsolete and not worth to stabilize anymore. > > So you would suggest to be like Ubuntu and say "we can not be bothered > to support any minority architectures anymore". This effectively > disbands all architecture teams except AMD64 and X86; it should be > subject to the same scrutiny (I suggest a council vote) as a GLEP or > EAPI change. > Personally I would like to hear stronger reasons then "it inconveniences > me when a bug I file is open longer then a month" to destroy the current > diversity of supported architectures (be it PowerPC or a prefix > installation on OS X). > > Regards, > Tony V.
Oh come on. I never said to stop supporting those arches. I just said to shrink their stable tree. What do you suggest? Pretend to have active exotic arches just to look shiny and pretty? -- Markos Chandras (hwoarang) Gentoo Linux Developer Web:


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>