On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > Maybe we need a third category - 'at risk'. Such a port will typically > have no active maintainer, some likely serious bugs and might at some > future date be obsoleted if no maintainer steps forward. > > We could put several ports into that category and it shouldn't have the > negative stigma that obsolete seems to have.
One possible way of assessing activity would be to say that after 4.1 maintained CPU ports should have test results for mainline regularly sent to gcc-testresults and monitored for regressions, though this rather depends on the willingness of maintainers of embedded ports to do this testing; ports without such testing and regression monitoring could be considered at risk. Only the following ports seem to have had results for 4.1.0-mainline (i.e. mainline since 4.0 branched) sent to gcc-testresults: alpha, arm, hppa, i?86/x86_64, ia64, mips, powerpc, s390, sh, sparc, although cris and mmix are evidently monitored for regressions even though they don't get test results to gcc-testresults. (If test results for a port are so bad that though sent to gcc-testresults they exceed the message size limit, and this remains the case for a prolonged period such as ever since 4.0 branched, that also indicates lack of active maintenance.) -- Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CodeSourcery mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)
