| 1 |
Richard Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> Raúl Porcel wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Peter Weller wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Oh, I'd be more than happy to accept help from developers like that. |
| 5 |
>>> It's just a case of what the "big bosses" think of it. Plus there's |
| 6 |
>>> the fact that some other arches operate on a "it compiles, mark it |
| 7 |
>>> stable" policy, and we don't want developers to bring that attitude to |
| 8 |
>>> the amd64 team. |
| 9 |
>> Hope you're not referring to any of my arches because that's not true :) |
| 10 |
>> In fact, if i did that, i wouldn't crash the alpha dev box so often, |
| 11 |
>> right Tobias? |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I dunno - I just hit bug 211021 today while trying to clean out old |
| 15 |
> bugs. Already stable on one arch and not a word from the maintainer. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I do agree with many of the posts in this thread by others - a big issue |
| 18 |
> is manpower. However, I did want to mention that stabling packages |
| 19 |
> without input from maintainers seems to be a moderately-common practice. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I've never seen that, unless the maintainer doesn't respond, like in |
| 22 |
this case, humpback has been ignoring his bugs for a long time, like |
| 23 |
other devs(unfortunately). Maybe the council should talk about that: |
| 24 |
devs ignoring his bugs for months, but i don't know how would they |
| 25 |
enforce that. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
What i've seen is some bugs where the arches were cc'ed by users or by a |
| 28 |
developer, but in this case, someone of the arch team that knows that |
| 29 |
the dev is active, just uncc's all the arches until the maintainer |
| 30 |
responds, but in this case, humpback didn't say anything about the |
| 31 |
previous tor stabilization request for months. So you should be glad |
| 32 |
someone active like Christian, took over the maintenance and he is |
| 33 |
responsible if something goes wrong with the stabilization. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> I'm sure the arch team leaders would welcome help if it were offered, |
| 36 |
> but it is more important that packages keyworded stable actually work |
| 37 |
> than for the latest-and-greatest package to be marked stable. |
| 38 |
> Interested users can volunteer to be ATs as well - in my past experience |
| 39 |
> as an AT when I keyworded a bug STABLE I could expect to see it |
| 40 |
> committed by a dev within a few hours. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
IIRC you are from the blubb era, i'm i right? Blubb did a really god job |
| 43 |
with amd64, and in fact amd64 started 'slacking' since blubb left. |
| 44 |
Unfortunately that doesn't work anymore, in a lot of bugs i've seen an |
| 45 |
AT of yours posting his results, when i was going to do my arches. So i |
| 46 |
was more faster even that i have no ATs. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
And look at x86, we don't have any ATs, god, we even had some that moved |
| 49 |
to amd64! drac, mlangc, etc etc. |
| 50 |
For example, bug 205242. Look, its mlangc! :P |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> While amd64 is a lot more mainstream than it used to be you can't just |
| 53 |
> assume that upstream wouldn't have released something if it didn't work |
| 54 |
> perfectly on amd64. |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
Indeed, but on x86 we don't assume it either :) I don't understand how |
| 58 |
you having so many users, have manpower problems, you have two channels |
| 59 |
on IRC, x86 only has one and nobody says anything. |
| 60 |
It's just a though, i'm not blaming anyone. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
-- |
| 63 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives