| 1 |
El lun, 06-10-2008 a las 23:13 +0000, Duncan escribió: |
| 2 |
> Jeremy Olexa <darkside@g.o> posted 48EA6FF2.8020201@g.o, |
| 3 |
> excerpted below, on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:07:14 -0500: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > AFAIK, it is incorrect right now to exclude s390, arm, sh, etc on |
| 6 |
> > stablereqs right now..But, I ask this question to the dev community: |
| 7 |
> > "Why?" There are ~190 open bugs with s390 as assignee or on the CC list. |
| 8 |
> > Does it *really* matter if these under-staffed "odd" arches have a |
| 9 |
> > stable tree or not? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Having been an amd64 user back when it was much smaller, and having |
| 12 |
> followed the previous discussion on this here, including the mips -> |
| 13 |
> experimental move, yes, it does matter. With the bugs there's at least |
| 14 |
> some info on a package and its stabilization potential when/if someone |
| 15 |
> gets around to doing something about it. Without them, the job of |
| 16 |
> bringing them back to unsupported and then to full supported, if there's |
| 17 |
> suddenly a leap in interest, becomes much harder as there's that much |
| 18 |
> less info on what /was/ stable at one point, and on anything in the ~arch |
| 19 |
> versions that might need checked before they go stable again. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I fully agree. I think bringing some understaffed arches back to ~arch |
| 23 |
is an option, but should be avoided if possible. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I wonder how many of these 190 open bugs in s390 are actually bugs about |
| 26 |
brokenness, and not just regular stabilizations... |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
And by the way, amd64 had a similar amount of open bugs by the end of |
| 29 |
2007. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Regards, |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Santiago Moisés Mola |
| 34 |
Jabber: cooldwind@×××××.com | GPG: AAD203B5 |
Archives