Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] call for agenda items -- council meeting 2017-09-10
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 00:47:30
Message-Id: 20170905004726.GA30825@linux1.home
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] call for agenda items -- council meeting 2017-09-10 by "Paweł Hajdan
1 On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 11:05:51PM +0200, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
2 > On 04/09/2017 20:37, Michał Górny wrote:
3 > > ...or dumping Gentoo for a distribution that doesn't dump huge breakage
4 > > on users in week's time. Guess which one is more likely to happen.
5 > >
6 > > If our purpose is just to show the middle finger to users, why not
7 > > remove the keyword altogether and stop pretending it's there when it
8 > > clearly isn't?
9 >
10 > Do we have any data about possible size of affected user base?
12 I'm not sure we do have any, but what we do have is dead arch teams, so
13 stable on these arches is getting old and maintainers are being
14 prevented from removing old versions of packages because newer versions
15 are not being stabilized.
17 > Meanwhile, consider producing a roadmap of possible steps to take and
18 > timeline. At each step there may be a chance to save the niche arches or
19 > stop going further, if general Gentoo development is no longer hindered
20 > by that arch.
22 The original proposal on this thread was to flip the flag in the
23 profiles for these arches to dev, which would make it easy for arch
24 teams to flip it back to stable once they are up and running as well as
25 not hinder the rest of the arches in the meantime.
27 I see this as a reasonable first step in the timeline to sunsetting
28 these arches if that is what we want to do, but let me go back to the
29 original proposal.
31 The original proposal had nothing to do with sunsetting the arches,
32 only their stable trees.
34 I would like to point out again that David brought this to our attention
35 because the arch teams have disappeared instead of just doing this
36 change themselves, which is allowed. If they had done this there would
37 be no need for any discussion or for a council proposal at all.
39 William


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature