| 1 |
On 05/20/2016 09:47 PM, Matt Turner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> To make sure I understand what you're getting at, are you saying some |
| 4 |
>> devs get on board and then request to add keywords to packages that they |
| 5 |
>> already maintain? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> No, you've misunderstood. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> He's saying people add new packages and then speculatively add |
| 10 |
> keywords for a bunch of architectures that they haven't tested. This |
| 11 |
> causes unnecessary packages to be keyworded on archs that don't want |
| 12 |
> them and can hardly afford the extra load. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> The appropriate thing to do when adding a new package is to add only |
| 15 |
> keywords you can test and maintain (likely just ~amd64), and then file |
| 16 |
> a keyword request to ask arch teams to keyword the package if |
| 17 |
> appropriate, which leaves the choice to them. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Ah, I see. In that case I'm in full agreement. We're taught during the |
| 21 |
mentoring/quizzing process that we don't keyword what we haven't tested. |
| 22 |
That's one of the most basic "rules". |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer |
| 26 |
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net |
| 27 |
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 |
Archives