Re: [gentoo-dev] evolution of x86 stabling procedures

[Grant Goodyear]

Mark Loeser wrote: [Mon Jun 05 2006, 03:25:02PM CDT]
> Well, since you decided to bring this up on here, I guess we'll just try
> to address everything.

Where else would I have brought this up?  Paraphrasing, I noted that the
x86 team is now doing peer review, I asked if other arch teams are doing
the same thing, and I asked how the new system is working, and whether
or not the old fears that peer review would slow things down too much
seemed to be valid.  If that isn't a question for the Gentoo development
list, I don't know what is.  Nowhere did I say anything evenly remotely
negative about what the x86 team is doing, as far as I can tell.  If I
did, then I sincerely apologize, as it was definitely not my intention.

> Peer review should be part of any stablization process.  The glep that
> *you* wrote even provides for it:
>
> For a package to move to stable, the following guidelines must be met:
> ...
> * The relevant arch team must agree to it.

Heh.  That'll teach me!  

> Maybe it was not what you intended, but we have not been slowing down
> any process as far as I'm aware, since we get to our bugs as quickly as
> we possibly can.  And every arch team has their own keywording policy.
> I don't see why x86 can not have the poilcy that we decided on.  If you
> have MIPS hardware and you mark something ~mips, I'm pretty sure they
> will be pissed if they didn't give you prior permission.  Probably the
> same for a few archs.

I didn't say that the x86 policy was a bad one.  I was rather hoping
that x86 was doing peer review and at least one other arch team wasn't,
since then we could try to make some sort of quantitative comparison.

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@g.o
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76