| 1 |
On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 7:37:46 PM EDT Chris Reffett wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 11/02/2016 12:21 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 9:45:58 PM EDT Michael Palimaka wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On 31/10/16 08:22, Raymond Jennings wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>> Have arch teams possibly certify more arch testers? If you can prove or |
| 6 |
> >>> promise that your system is capable of testing packages for |
| 7 |
> >>> stabilization, the arch team should be able to recruit you pretty much |
| 8 |
> >>> no questions asked unless they have a reason otherwise. |
| 9 |
> >> |
| 10 |
> >> Unfortunately I've seen quite limited interest from new potential arch |
| 11 |
> >> testers lately (compared to some years ago), and in the cases where |
| 12 |
> >> someone did raise their hand there was nobody from the arch team |
| 13 |
> >> available to work with them. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > One of many areas I would help out with if I could ever return. I joined |
| 16 |
> > the amd64 team back in the day when I was a dev to help with |
| 17 |
> > stabilization on that arch. Mostly Java stuff but some other. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> We get it, you want to come back. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Not really, there is more a need for someone, than want from me. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> You don't need to derail every other |
| 24 |
> thread with how things were back in your day or reasons people should |
| 25 |
> want you back, it won't help your case with anyone. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
A simple comment is not derailing a thread. It was on topic. A council agenda |
| 28 |
item may be lack of arch testers. The council knowing there are people who |
| 29 |
could be tapped for such is on topic. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Unlike the rather rude reply which was completely unnecessary. I surely do not |
| 32 |
go around telling others what they need do or not. Such posts would be better |
| 33 |
direct than to a public list... |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives