1 |
On 7/9/2005 3:10:12, Stuart Longland (redhatter@g.o) wrote: |
2 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
3 |
> > On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 9:44:41 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" <kevquinn@g.o> |
4 |
> > wrote: |
5 |
> > | On 5/9/2005 1:29:57, Ciaran McCreesh (ciaranm@g.o) wrote: |
6 |
> > | > On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 1:12:54 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" |
7 |
> > | > <kevquinn@g.o> |
8 |
> > | > wrote: |
9 |
> > | > | 3) All packages need to be assigned an x86 arch team member |
10 |
> > | > | responsible. |
11 |
> > | > |
12 |
> > | > Why? |
13 |
> > | |
14 |
> > | Because if only the x86 arch team can mark stuff stable, anything |
15 |
> > | without representation on the x86 arch team will stay unstable |
16 |
> > | forever. Maybe rather than one specific arch team member, several |
17 |
> > | would undertake to manage otherwise unassigned packages. |
18 |
> > |
19 |
> > There are currently ~700 packages which are not visible to x86 or ~x86 |
20 |
> > users. Do these need an x86 arch team member? Is it the aim of the x86 |
21 |
> > arch team to cover the entire tree, or only things which are useful to |
22 |
> > x86 users? |
23 |
> |
24 |
> If nobody on x86 is using a given package, is there a need to worry |
25 |
> about marking it ~x86/x86? |
26 |
|
27 |
When I said 'All', I didn't mean to include stuff that's not in x86. |
28 |
What I was trying to get at, was the idea that if the x86 arch team |
29 |
is responsible for stable marking x86, then all packages that want |
30 |
to go x86 need representation on the x86 arch team. |
31 |
|
32 |
Kev. |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |