El lun, 06-10-2008 a las 23:13 +0000, Duncan escribió: > Jeremy Olexa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], > excerpted below, on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:07:14 -0500: > > > 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? > > Having been an amd64 user back when it was much smaller, and having > followed the previous discussion on this here, including the mips -> > experimental move, yes, it does matter. With the bugs there's at least > some info on a package and its stabilization potential when/if someone > gets around to doing something about it. Without them, the job of > bringing them back to unsupported and then to full supported, if there's > suddenly a leap in interest, becomes much harder as there's that much > less info on what /was/ stable at one point, and on anything in the ~arch > versions that might need checked before they go stable again. >
I fully agree. I think bringing some understaffed arches back to ~arch is an option, but should be avoided if possible. I wonder how many of these 190 open bugs in s390 are actually bugs about brokenness, and not just regular stabilizations... And by the way, amd64 had a similar amount of open bugs by the end of 2007. Regards, -- Santiago Moisés Mola Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG: AAD203B5
signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
