1 |
On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 15:37 +0100, Stefan Schweizer wrote: |
2 |
> moving keywording only in the arch teams responsibility is the way to go |
3 |
> imo because I hate having keywording bugs assigned to my herd where I |
4 |
> can do nothing about it. |
5 |
|
6 |
Uhh... so why *don't* you assign these to the arch teams? |
7 |
|
8 |
Here's a good example... games. We get keyword requests all the time. |
9 |
Sometimes, one of us has the time to test it right there, so we do and |
10 |
we resolve the bug. EVERY other time, we defer it to the arch team, |
11 |
almost immediately. If we're also members of that arch team, we might |
12 |
come back later and do it ourselves, but it's really a job for the arch |
13 |
team, and up to them to either do the work, or decide not to add |
14 |
KEYWORDS and close the bug. |
15 |
|
16 |
> > I am not sure how a) is going to work at all in |
17 |
> > this respect. Are we going to get tons of ebuilds just sitting there never |
18 |
> > made visible to any arch now (since even x86 would have a large backlog)? |
19 |
> |
20 |
> it can be automated to do this from the maintainer arch if the arch team |
21 |
> wants it. |
22 |
|
23 |
When will people get rid of this concept of "maintainer arch" ? |
24 |
|
25 |
Not all maintainers only use one architecture. Not all ebuild |
26 |
maintainers use the same architecture all the time. When I do a commit, |
27 |
it could be from one of any of *eight* architectures. The number of |
28 |
people using only one architecture is growing smaller. This is |
29 |
especially true for the "top 10%" who do most of the commits. Go back |
30 |
and look at who those people are, they're the same people that work on |
31 |
*multiple* architectures. |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
Chris Gianelloni |
35 |
Release Engineering Strategic Lead |
36 |
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams |
37 |
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee |
38 |
Gentoo Foundation |