Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:44:51 -0500
Jeremy Olexa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would suggest moving all the "slacking" arches to "experimental"
until there is desire from the dev community (read: manpower) to
support a stable tree again. Until then, it seems pretty pointless to
keep assigning bugs to these arches and they just keep rotting there
because no one gets around to them.
2 cents,
-Jeremy
++ $473.57
My aim with the email wasn't to start up this discussion so much as to
figure out which arches are supported by stable keywords, and which
ones are okay to not request stable keywords so that bugs don't sit
around for months without action on them. I know that vapier is
pretty much the only dev with an sh or s390 box, but I know there are
a couple of people with ARM, I was just hoping we had some sort of
official list somewhere.
I wasn't trying to go down that road either but you should know that
this discussion will be forced there if there is to be any conclusion to
this topic. AFAIK, it is incorrect right now to exclude s390, arm, sh,
etc on stablereqs right now..But, I ask this question to the dev
community: "Why?" There are ~190 open bugs with s390 as assignee or on
the CC list. Does it *really* matter if these under-staffed "odd" arches
have a stable tree or not? If there is a problem with a stable package
right now, will there be a new version marked stable in a reasonable
amount of time? I think we can conclude that having a stable tree for
understaffed arches might cause more harm than good.
To conclude my input on the topic:
It is my opinion that filing stablereqs against these arches is silly.
However, I will continue to do so until requested otherwise. I respect
that people may not have enough resources or time to keep up to x86 or
amd64, so maybe there needs to be a policy change somehow..? (or maybe
it just needs to be clarified better)
-Jeremy
