| 1 |
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 11:39:07 -0400 |
| 2 |
"Thomas Cort" <linuxgeek@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 10/4/06, Kevin F. Quinn <kevquinn@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 09:21:08 -0400 |
| 6 |
> > "Thomas Cort" <linuxgeek@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > > > The "minority" arches like mips, sparc etc seem to get along |
| 9 |
> > > > quite happily. |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> > > Not the "minority" arches like m68k, s390, alpha, ... |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > I haven't seen any significant numbers of complaints. What exactly |
| 14 |
> > about those arches do you think is a problem? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> The speed at which bugs are resolved is the problem. Keywording/stable |
| 17 |
> bugs can sit for months and sometimes over a year without being |
| 18 |
> touched. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
So? Who is complaining? Open stabilisation bugs are a concern for the |
| 21 |
relevant arches, not for everyone. Once an arch has actioned a |
| 22 |
stabilisation bug, they remove themselves from CC, after which they |
| 23 |
don't care. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Some people think the amount of time some arches lag behind |
| 26 |
> is acceptable, I don't. The primary reason why arches lag is that we |
| 27 |
> don't have enough people doing the testing and keywording. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> > You should only raise expectations when you know you can follow |
| 30 |
> > through, not the other way around. Raising expectations before |
| 31 |
> > being able to follow through leads to disappointment, which is bad. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> I think that if we implement my suggestions (drastically reducing the |
| 34 |
> workload), we will be able to meet those expectations. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
All that will happen if you ditch the minority arches, is that the devs |
| 37 |
involved will take their work into overlay or possibly leave Gentoo |
| 38 |
altogether. It won't improve anything for other arches. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
Kevin F. Quinn |
Archives