On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 11:39:07 -0400 "Thomas Cort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/4/06, Kevin F. Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 09:21:08 -0400 > > "Thomas Cort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > The "minority" arches like mips, sparc etc seem to get along > > > > quite happily. > > > > > > Not the "minority" arches like m68k, s390, alpha, ... > > > > I haven't seen any significant numbers of complaints. What exactly > > about those arches do you think is a problem? > > The speed at which bugs are resolved is the problem. Keywording/stable > bugs can sit for months and sometimes over a year without being > touched. So? Who is complaining? Open stabilisation bugs are a concern for the relevant arches, not for everyone. Once an arch has actioned a stabilisation bug, they remove themselves from CC, after which they don't care. > Some people think the amount of time some arches lag behind > is acceptable, I don't. The primary reason why arches lag is that we > don't have enough people doing the testing and keywording. > > > You should only raise expectations when you know you can follow > > through, not the other way around. Raising expectations before > > being able to follow through leads to disappointment, which is bad. > > I think that if we implement my suggestions (drastically reducing the > workload), we will be able to meet those expectations. All that will happen if you ditch the minority arches, is that the devs involved will take their work into overlay or possibly leave Gentoo altogether. It won't improve anything for other arches. -- Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
