Lucas Nussbaum writes (Maintainers, porters, and burden of porting):
However, issues such as miscompilation or broken syscall or libc
semantics are largely undetected. To illustrate this, you can have a
look at #635126 (miscompilation on armel and sparc) and #639658
(forks+threads fun
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 02:52:53PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Let me make an alternative proposal:
* The root cause bug in the BTS would be given a special tag
(arch-blocker:arch or something). I will call such a bug which
is open and has existed in this state for 30 days a ripe arch
TL;DR: I think that we should have a discussion about the respective
roles responsibilities of maintainers and porters with regard to
porting.
Release team, there's a question for you regarding ruby1.9.1 in the last
paragraph.
Hi,
First, I'd like to say that I'm very proud of the
3 matches
Mail list logo
