1 |
>>>>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2013, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> I didn't really get any response to this one way or another. At the |
4 |
> last council meeting a majority of the votes were in favor of |
5 |
> delaying taking action, so this is back on the agenda. |
6 |
|
7 |
> I have yet to see either of the following on this list: |
8 |
> 1. Specific examples of bugs where a minor arch is making a |
9 |
> maintainer's life difficult. Please post if you have them. |
10 |
> 2. Members of these arch teams posting here committing to either |
11 |
> stabilize new versions or unkeyword old versions in a timely manner. |
12 |
|
13 |
> The responses to either of these (or lack thereof) are likely to |
14 |
> influence my vote at the meeting. Note, I'm not interested in mere |
15 |
> comments that people want an arch to stay stable supported (which |
16 |
> I've seen plenty of). I'm interested in COMMITMENT to be |
17 |
> stable-supportable (which I've seen none of). The lack of the |
18 |
> latter is what is going to cause a package to be dropped - I'd love |
19 |
> to see every arch that exists stable-supported on Gentoo, along with |
20 |
> world peace. This is a volunteer distro - in general you get the |
21 |
> features you pitch in to help deliver, and if you're depending on a |
22 |
> minor arch you REALLY need to step up as there aren't many of you |
23 |
> out there. That said, I would like specific examples of cases where |
24 |
> dropping a minor arch would have helped - the onus is on those |
25 |
> wanting the status quo changed to present a case. |
26 |
|
27 |
[Crossposting to -dev. Replies should go to -project if possible.] |
28 |
|
29 |
Again, no reply. I suspect the outcome of today's vote will be that |
30 |
stable keywords for the architectures in question (alpha, ia64, m68k, |
31 |
s390, sh, sparc) should be dropped. |
32 |
|
33 |
Arch teams, last chance to speak up. |
34 |
|
35 |
Ulrich |