| 1 |
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> However, some people raised the point that we should provide stable stages |
| 5 |
>> for these architectures and drop everything else to ~arch. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> So if the Council votes 'NO' to the original question, vote on whether |
| 8 |
>> only @system should |
| 9 |
>> be stable for these architectures. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I'd be interested in whether anybody on the arch teams themselves |
| 12 |
> actually supports this proposal. I don't think I actually heard much |
| 13 |
> commentary in that thread one way or another from arch team members, |
| 14 |
> which is as good a reason as any to just completely drop the arch to |
| 15 |
> testing. If some spoke up about being willing to keep up with the |
| 16 |
> @system packages then considering allowing stable keywords for those |
| 17 |
> would make more sense. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> And yes, I was one of the proponents of the model I tossed out there. |
| 20 |
> A good idea that isn't going to be properly supported isn't a good |
| 21 |
> idea. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Rich |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I'm an Alpha maintainer and a MIPS (which is unstable only) |
| 27 |
maintainer. I'm against the proposal and I said so in the thread. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
It seemed to me that I was the only arch team member to respond. All |
| 30 |
of the +1s were from people with no stake in the architectures |
| 31 |
themselves, and for me hold very little value. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I can respond with arguments and data to support my case now, or just |
| 34 |
as easily (assuming I remember to attend) the upcoming council |
| 35 |
meeting. |
Archives