Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> No, buildd admins are responsible for fixing buildd problems. *Porters* are >>> responsible for *ensuring their port is a viable release candidate*. Given >>> that one of the release criteria is "keeping up with unstable", porters most >>> definitely *are* expected to help make sure packages are getting built. >> >> I think the problem is that if the buildds don't talk to the porters, >> and the porters aren't allowed to upload binNMUs themselves, then they >> are essentially barred from their assigned task. >> >> How about we make porters responsible for running their buildds >> instead of the current arrangement? > > You mean allow porters to add buildds (or just buildd admins) to the > arch to increase redundancy? This can be a gradual process.
How about making porters responsible for running the buildds for their arch? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]