On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 11:44:07 -0400 "Thomas Cort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/4/06, Kevin F. Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 09:41:45 -0400 > > Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > My view is that while they're being actively supported, there's no > > reason to remove them. Granted their mostly SpanKY's babies, but so > > what? > > My view is that currently we cannot offer the same level of support > for the minority arches as the majority arches because we don't have > enough people involved. We don't need to. Gentoo isn't just one single thing, and I see no reason to require that all projects and arches offer the same level of support. Each project and arch can make their own determination about what level of support they can and will offer. Embedded users, for example, are generally more technically-oriented to start with so need far less support than, say, non-technical x86 users. > I think that spreading the developers too thin > leads to conflict and burnout. Look at NetBSD and debian. They are > trying to be everything for everyone. How is that working for them, > how is it working for us? I think we should be more focused, but > that's just my opinion. Minority arches don't affect devs who aren't interested in them, so they have no impact on how spread out the developers are. Effectively you're saying that those involved in the minority arches should stop messing about with that and commit all their Gentoo time to mainline activities, which is obviously not sensible. -- Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
