| 1 |
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 23:07 +0000, Ferris McCormick wrote: |
| 2 |
> I also like alpha, but that is not what I am responding to. And I have to |
| 3 |
> admit that I haven't followed this too closely. But the "if one arch |
| 4 |
> stabalises..." assumption can be misleading. For example, xorg-x11 |
| 5 |
> maintainer arch is x86 (spyderous will correct me if I am wrong), but I |
| 6 |
> know of at least once instance in which sparc (and a few other archs) were |
| 7 |
> stable ahead of x86. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Granted, spyderous knew what was going on and why, but for a few days |
| 10 |
> there, the "stabilises" rule of thumb with nothing more would have led the |
| 11 |
> unsuspecting reader to believe that maintainer arch for xorg was sparc. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
No, because spyderous didn't do it. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
It should also be noted in the ChangeLog: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
"Marking stable on sparc because of $blah, which needs to be addressed |
| 18 |
quickly... got the OK from spyderous..." |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Something like that... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 24 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager |
| 25 |
Games - Developer |
| 26 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives