| 1 |
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 06:23:11 -0500 (EST) |
| 2 |
"Caleb Tennis" <caleb@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Most of the time, when people are moaning about 'slacker' archs, |
| 4 |
> > they don't have any kind of decent technical reason for doing so... |
| 5 |
> > In cases where such a reason exists, the arch teams are usually |
| 6 |
> > quite happy to prioritise if asked. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> And the point of me asking for the council to talk about this is to |
| 9 |
> set some kind of guidelines for what happens after you've asked X |
| 10 |
> number of times and let Y number of days go by, where X and Y are |
| 11 |
> amounts open for discussion. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
X and Y are pretty much irrelevant. The important factor is Z, the |
| 14 |
impact of leaving things the way they are. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
-- |
| 17 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives