Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jack Morgan <jmorgan@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About current ppc/ppc64 status
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 00:18:06
Message-Id: 20140731002140.GA29496@toyama.bonyari.local
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] About current ppc/ppc64 status by "Anthony G. Basile"
1 On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 07:44:57PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
2 > On 07/30/14 17:18, Joseph Jezak wrote:
3 > > On 07/30/2014 06:26 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
4 > >> On 07/29/14 22:16, Jack Morgan wrote:
5 > >>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 04:29:51PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
6 > >>>> On 07/26/14 09:44, Pacho Ramos wrote:
7 > >>>>> El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 09:37 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
8 > >>>>>> On 07/26/14 09:28, Pacho Ramos wrote:
9 > >>>>>>> El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 14:55 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel escribió:
10 > >>>>>>>> Am Samstag, 26. Juli 2014, 13:56:02 schrieb Pacho Ramos:
11 > >>>>>>>>
12 > >>>>>>>>> I guess we will need to wait for the next Council to
13 > >>>>>>>>> officially decide
14 > >>>>>>>>> to do this as it will be a big change for ppc* users :/ (I
15 > >>>>>>>>> remember
16 > >>>>>>>>> their action was needed for the move to testing of some arches
17 > >>>>>>>>> and the
18 > >>>>>>>>> "package-by-package" proposal for others)
19 > >>>>>>>>>
20 > >>>>>>>>> Also, I am not sure if any other arch teams (sparc, ia64?)
21 > >>>>>>>>> would want to
22 > >>>>>>>>> get this policy too :| (I got ppc* because this concrete case ;))
23 > >>>>>>>> At first this is an arch team decision. No need for the council.
24 > >>>>>>>>
25 > >>>>>>>> (Given that in this case there is a responsive and addressable
26 > >>>>>>>> arch team...)
27 > >>>>>>>>
28 > >>>>>>>> --
29 > >>>>>>>>
30 > >>>>>>>> Andreas K. Huettel
31 > >>>>>>>> Gentoo Linux developer
32 > >>>>>>>> dilfridge@g.o
33 > >>>>>>>> http://www.akhuettel.de/
34 > >>>>>>>>
35 > >>>>>>> The problem is that blueness looks to be the only member currently
36 > >>>>>>> replying :/, I have checked their page and I see no team lead or
37 > >>>>>>> similar. Then, I am not sure how to get the ok to proceed or not
38 > >>>>>>> :| (to
39 > >>>>>>> prevent this from getting stalled and we keep trying stabilizing
40 > >>>>>>> all the
41 > >>>>>>> things).
42 > >>>>>>>
43 > >>>>>>> I remember from older thread (one related with udev
44 > >>>>>>> stabilization), that
45 > >>>>>>> blueness was also the only one replying.
46 > >>>>>>>
47 > >>>>>>>
48 > >>>>>> Yeah, not having a clear lead is a problem. No one wants to just
49 > >>>>>> make a
50 > >>>>>> big decision on behalf of the team without making sure everyone
51 > >>>>>> is on
52 > >>>>>> board. Pacho, do you have access to timberdoodle? If so, join both
53 > >>>>>> teams and just take the initiative and let any other "claimants"
54 > >>>>>> step
55 > >>>>>> forward now. BTW, taking the lead doesn't mean doing all the work
56 > >>>>>> yourself. I want to see ppc/ppc64 in good shape. I'll be happy to
57 > >>>>>> write scripts to do the demoting to ~ etc etc.
58 > >>>>>>
59 > >>>>> I don't even know about timberdoodle :(
60 > >>>>>
61 > >>>>> I forwarded the mail to both alias (as I forgot first time), then,
62 > >>>>> hopefully they will review it :/
63 > >>>>>
64 > >>>>> Will CC them again to this just now with this link to allow all to
65 > >>>>> read
66 > >>>>> the full thread:
67 > >>>>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/92151
68 > >>>>>
69 > >>>>>
70 > >>>>>
71 > >>>> I think its clear who cares about ppc/ppc64. If there are no
72 > >>>> objections, I'll take the lead of those teams and see this plan
73 > >>>> through. I'll wait a few days for people to voice concerns. Then I'll
74 > >>>> start by generating a list of all stable and testing packages on
75 > >>>> ppc and
76 > >>>> ppc64. I'll post then and then continue the conversation on just the
77 > >>>> ppc and ppc64 lists. Don't worry, I won't start dropping to ~
78 > >>>> until we
79 > >>>> have a concise plan and we're all on board.
80 > >>> I don't think you can/should just take over the leadership of an
81 > >>> arch.
82 > >>> Why not have meeting/discussion for team members. Especially since you
83 > >>> are proposing such a big change.
84 > >>>
85 > >>>
86 > >>> Thanks,
87 > >>>
88 > >>
89 > >> Okay, any members of the ppc team please speak up. I'll wait a week.
90 > >>
91 > > I'm still trying to escape from grad school and getting married this
92 > > fall, so my contributions have been limited at best, which is why I've
93 > > been shying away from throwing in my two cents. That said, while I'd
94 > > rather not just remove stable keywords until there's a reason, I have
95 > > no problem with dropping keywords for stuff that is holding up
96 > > stabilization bugs if that's what it takes for things to move forward.
97 > > If you'd like to have a meeting about it, that's fine too.
98 > >
99 > > -Joe
100 > >
101 >
102 > Sure, let's meet. I'd like to have jmorgan come too and any other
103 > ppc/ppc64 members. How does Monday Aug 4 at 20:00 UTC sound to people.
104 > If not please counter propose a time.
105
106 This sounds fine for me. I'll be there. I've been away for a few months
107 but getting back to helping out. If the current lead isn't active, then
108 we should have a vote as to who should take over that role. Then discuss
109 how to proceed with the topics in this thread.
110
111 Thanks for organizing this.
112
113
114
115 Cheers,`
116
117 --
118 Jack Morgan
119 Pub 4096R/761D8E0A 2010-09-13 Jack Morgan <jmorgan@g.o>>
120 Fingerprint = DD42 EA48 D701 D520 C2CD 55BE BF53 C69B 761D 8E0A

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature