| 1 |
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 03:30:39PM +0400, Sergey Popov wrote: |
| 2 |
> 15.01.2014 01:37, William Hubbs пишет: |
| 3 |
> > All, |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > It is becoming more and more obvious that we do not have enough manpower |
| 6 |
> > on the arch teams, even some of the ones we consider major arch's, to |
| 7 |
> > keep up with stabilization requests. For example, there is this bug [1], |
| 8 |
> > which is blocking the stabilization of several important packages. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> And by the way, the only arches left there are ppc and ppc64, which are |
| 11 |
> NOT major ones. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Sparc is also still on that bug, and according to the council decision I |
| 14 |
sited, these arch's are still treated like major arch's. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Wrt your comment about x86 and amd64 having agreements that maintainers |
| 17 |
can stabilize packages on those arch's, I thought amd64 did, but I |
| 18 |
didn't know about x86. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Formal policy says that all stabilizations must be done by arch teams |
| 21 |
unless you have special arrangements with them [1], so my questions |
| 22 |
still stand. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
1. Should we make it policy that maintainers can stabilize packages on |
| 25 |
arch's they have access to? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
2. See Rich's message in this thread for my other concern; he spells it |
| 28 |
out pretty well -- what should we do about architectures the maintainer |
| 29 |
does not have access to? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
3. Also, another interesting question has come up in this thread, that of |
| 32 |
non-binary packages. Should we give maintainers the option of |
| 33 |
stabilizing them on all arch's themselves? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
William |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
[1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html |
Archives