| 1 |
Steev Klimaszewski wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:44:51 -0500 |
| 4 |
>> Jeremy Olexa <darkside@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> I would suggest moving all the "slacking" arches to "experimental" |
| 7 |
>>> until there is desire from the dev community (read: manpower) to |
| 8 |
>>> support a stable tree again. Until then, it seems pretty pointless to |
| 9 |
>>> keep assigning bugs to these arches and they just keep rotting there |
| 10 |
>>> because no one gets around to them. |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> 2 cents, |
| 13 |
>>> -Jeremy |
| 14 |
>> ++ $473.57 |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> My aim with the email wasn't to start up this discussion so much as to |
| 19 |
> figure out which arches are supported by stable keywords, and which |
| 20 |
> ones are okay to not request stable keywords so that bugs don't sit |
| 21 |
> around for months without action on them. I know that vapier is |
| 22 |
> pretty much the only dev with an sh or s390 box, but I know there are |
| 23 |
> a couple of people with ARM, I was just hoping we had some sort of |
| 24 |
> official list somewhere. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I wasn't trying to go down that road either but you should know that |
| 28 |
this discussion will be forced there if there is to be any conclusion to |
| 29 |
this topic. AFAIK, it is incorrect right now to exclude s390, arm, sh, |
| 30 |
etc on stablereqs right now..But, I ask this question to the dev |
| 31 |
community: "Why?" There are ~190 open bugs with s390 as assignee or on |
| 32 |
the CC list. Does it *really* matter if these under-staffed "odd" arches |
| 33 |
have a stable tree or not? If there is a problem with a stable package |
| 34 |
right now, will there be a new version marked stable in a reasonable |
| 35 |
amount of time? I think we can conclude that having a stable tree for |
| 36 |
understaffed arches might cause more harm than good. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
To conclude my input on the topic: |
| 39 |
It is my opinion that filing stablereqs against these arches is silly. |
| 40 |
However, I will continue to do so until requested otherwise. I respect |
| 41 |
that people may not have enough resources or time to keep up to x86 or |
| 42 |
amd64, so maybe there needs to be a policy change somehow..? (or maybe |
| 43 |
it just needs to be clarified better) |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
-Jeremy |
Archives