El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 15:38 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió: > On 07/25/14 15:28, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > That is the reason for me thinking that maybe the way to go would be to > > do the opposite -> keep only base-system and a few others stable and > > drop stable for most of the rest. This big effort could be accomplished > > in a week by other developers willing to help (like me) and would solve > > the issue for the long term. I guess that is what HPPA team did in the > > past and I think it's working pretty well for them (in summary, have a > > stable tree they are able to keep stable). That will also help people in > > ppc* teams to know that the remaining stabilization bugs, apart of being > > much less, are important enough to deserve rapid attention, as opposed > > to current situation that will have some important bugs mixed with tons > > of stabilization requests of apps that got ppc stable keywords years ago > > and are currently no so important. > > > > Yes, please let's just do base system stable. I've been randomly taking > care of ppc but nothing systematic. Its pretty spotty. But at the same > time I don't like the idea of just loosing all the stabilization effort > on the base system, so that might work best. Something to think about > for mips too. > >
Nice, one think we would need to discuss is what do we consider base system :/ I guess packages maintained by base-system, toolchain and... xorg-server and co... what more Not sure if we could have a list of current stable tree for ppc*, once do we have that list, ppc* teams can drop from that list what they want and we get a new list that will be the final result. What do you think about that?
