| 1 |
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:28:16 +0100 |
| 2 |
Georg Rudoy <0xd34df00d@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Let's limit our sample to Gentoo tree then. How frequently arches list |
| 5 |
> shrinked as a result of bumping the version (because the upstream has |
| 6 |
> chosen so, not because of insufficient resources to keep testing all |
| 7 |
> previously stated arches)? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
They do not shrink only due to a result of bumping. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
In the ideal case it is indeed announced and we can do it at bump time; |
| 12 |
in the less ideal case they rather shrink due to us finding out that |
| 13 |
a particular major feature does no longer work on an architecture. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
This could thus also happen due to an incompatibility with one or |
| 16 |
another dependency for which no further architecture specific code is |
| 17 |
written, or perhaps due to an architecture specific bug that has arisen. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
In the ideal case, shrinking wouldn't be a problem; in the less ideal |
| 20 |
case, having no keywords is preferable to shrinking as continuously |
| 21 |
testing live ebuilds isn't affordable. |
Archives