1 |
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 09:01:55PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 22:55:42 +0300 |
3 |
> Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> > Oh come on. I never said to stop supporting those arches. I just said |
5 |
> > to shrink their stable tree. What do you suggest? Pretend to have |
6 |
> > active exotic arches just to look shiny and pretty? |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Claiming to support an exotic arch but forcing people to run ~arch on |
9 |
> it is not supporting it at all. One of the problems with exotic archs |
10 |
> is that they are much more likely to show up bugs than things that are |
11 |
> commonly used, and so knowing that something has been properly tested |
12 |
> is a lot more important there. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> -- |
15 |
> Ciaran McCreesh |
16 |
|
17 |
Ok then according to your definition that supported arches == stable |
18 |
tree, I can safely assume that we cannot support those arches |
19 |
-- |
20 |
Markos Chandras (hwoarang) |
21 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
22 |
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org |