On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 01:30:59PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:09:55 +0200 > Dirkjan Ochtman <d...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Markos Chandras > > <hwoar...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords > > > > > > - s390 > > > - sh > > > - ia64 > > > - alpha > > > - m68k > > > - sparc > > > > +many. > > ++many. > > If any of these arches considers themselves to be a major arch; they > need to speak up and let us know if reasonable, but then we also need > to ensure that we draw more manpower to such major arch. I think we are looking at this problem the wrong way. Why not define what is needed to be a major arch and a minor arch (~arch only). Then drop a marjor arch to a minor arch if they don't meet the requirement.
For example, we could define a major as having an arch lead, 3 active devs (commited to the cvs tree in the last xyz number of days), etc I've been trying to get more involved with ia64, sparc, ppc, ppc64 so my vote is to keep those arch as a major arch. I'd be willing to help out ago mark ebuilds stable but as others have pointed out he does such a good job, its hard to compete with him ;) Cheers, -- Jack Morgan Pub 4096R/761D8E0A 2010-09-13 Jack Morgan <jmor...@gentoo.org>> Fingerprint = DD42 EA48 D701 D520 C2CD 55BE BF53 C69B 761D 8E0A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
