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]

Reply via email to