On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 15:37 +0100, Stefan Schweizer wrote: > moving keywording only in the arch teams responsibility is the way to go > imo because I hate having keywording bugs assigned to my herd where I > can do nothing about it.
Uhh... so why *don't* you assign these to the arch teams? Here's a good example... games. We get keyword requests all the time. Sometimes, one of us has the time to test it right there, so we do and we resolve the bug. EVERY other time, we defer it to the arch team, almost immediately. If we're also members of that arch team, we might come back later and do it ourselves, but it's really a job for the arch team, and up to them to either do the work, or decide not to add KEYWORDS and close the bug. > > I am not sure how a) is going to work at all in > > this respect. Are we going to get tons of ebuilds just sitting there never > > made visible to any arch now (since even x86 would have a large backlog)? > > it can be automated to do this from the maintainer arch if the arch team > wants it. When will people get rid of this concept of "maintainer arch" ? Not all maintainers only use one architecture. Not all ebuild maintainers use the same architecture all the time. When I do a commit, it could be from one of any of *eight* architectures. The number of people using only one architecture is growing smaller. This is especially true for the "top 10%" who do most of the commits. Go back and look at who those people are, they're the same people that work on *multiple* architectures. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
