Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: ppc <ppc@g.o>, ppc64 <ppc64@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Status of ppc and ppc64 teams.
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 09:32:32
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Status of ppc and ppc64 teams. by "Anthony G. Basile"
1 El lun, 04-08-2014 a las 18:03 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
2 > Hi everyone,
3 >
4 > The ppc and ppc64 team members just had a meeting. One of our main
5 > issues was reconstituting those teams because they were in a state of
6 > disorganization. We've come up with a plan to move forward and address
7 > Pacho's original concern about ppc/ppc64 falling behind. Here's what we
8 > came up with:
9 >
10 > 1. We elected jmorgan as the lead for both ppc and ppc64. He's our
11 > point person for any ppc/ppc64 related issues.
12 >
13 > 2. If you are interested in helping out, whether you are a current team
14 > member or not, please speak up! There are people formally listed as
15 > part of the ppc/ppc64 herds, but there's so much inactivity, we'd like
16 > to know who's going to be active. Of course we understand there is this
17 > thing called "real life" but there is a difference between a little help
18 > and no involvement at all. We are considering culling the team members
19 > accordingly. (/me hides!)
20 >
21 > 3. We are going to try to keep ppc and ppc64 going as it has been, with
22 > the usual STABLEREQ and KEYWORDREQ. We think we can do it without
23 > overloading ourselves, especially if we get help. We do have a shared
24 > ppc64 system. The bigger problem is actually KEYWORDREQ's so we are
25 > going to request maintainers not ever drop ~ppc or ~ppc64 even when they
26 > feel a major bump has occurred, eg a deep rewrite to a library. We know
27 > this is living dangerously but we'll going to make use of the community
28 > in this regard --- either someone will bug us on a broken ~ppc/~ppc64
29 > package, or we'll catch it at stabilization.
30 >
31 > We'll try to move ppc/ppc64 chatter to those lists, but it was important
32 > that everyone know where we're at.
33 >
35 Then, you will finally try to keep current stable tree as big as
36 current :/? (I am referring only to stable tree, not about dropping
37 keywording entirely that wasn't ever the plan)


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Status of ppc and ppc64 teams. "Anthony G. Basile" <basile@××××××××××××××.edu>