| 1 |
> On Nov 3, 2016, at 6:08 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
>> El mié, 02-11-2016 a las 21:05 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. escribió: |
| 4 |
>> [...] |
| 5 |
>> A simple comment is not derailing a thread. It was on topic. A |
| 6 |
>> council agenda |
| 7 |
>> item may be lack of arch testers. The council knowing there are |
| 8 |
>> people who |
| 9 |
>> could be tapped for such is on topic. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Unlike the rather rude reply which was completely unnecessary. I |
| 12 |
>> surely do not |
| 13 |
>> go around telling others what they need do or not. Such posts would |
| 14 |
>> be better |
| 15 |
>> direct than to a public list... |
| 16 |
> Maybe one option that the "official" members of relevant arch testers |
| 17 |
> teams could have for allowing faster/easier stabilization would be to |
| 18 |
> rely on github PR (specially for the cases of "exotic" arches that will |
| 19 |
> have less man power for committing "manually" everything :/) |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The stabilization commit itself isn't that onerous, it's the testing. Likely a keyword or whiteboard from the non-dev AT on the stabilization bug would suffice no? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
That said, like the proxy-maint group, we could enlist some random devs to apply the stabilization commits based on the feedback of non-dev ATs. BUT, that's only going to work if we have some sort of enforced training and qualification criteria for non-dev ATs (which we likely have already) and I'm not sure the bureaucracy to manage that would leave us in a better situation than what we have now. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> |
Archives