On Aug 1, 9:42pm, [email protected] (Izumi Tsutsui) wrote: -- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/sparc
| christos@ wrote: | | > On Aug 1, 8:23pm, [email protected] (Izumi Tsutsui) wrote: | > -- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/sparc | > | > | I agree you can blame port masters if they leave their ports broken | > | more than *weeks*. | > | > Fine, let's create an SLA then. Without an SLA, people don't know | > what's to be expected. | | We already have Tier definitions. | | In Tier II: | >> ... keeping it working is the responsibility of the user community. | : | >> If the port is not working at release time, a release is done | >> without the port and the port is moved down to the life support tier. Yes, but this is nebulous; according to it, I did the right thing by stepping in and trying to fix it. If they fail to build constantly, then it is a waste of time to keep building them. We can say that if they fail to build for more than a month, they go to tier III. | In Tier III: | >> Organic ports get moved here if they do not complete a build for | >> 6 months or are otherwise suspected to be broken. | | Tier was introduced to reduce extra work for developers working | on Tier I ports. If these are not enough for you, what's better? | All Tier II ports would have few MD new features, so | they don't need *daily* checks. That's the point. But this is not true in practice. | We can split autobuild script into Tier I/II ones | if people just want "0 failure" in daily buidable status. Yes, that would be better. | | > | If you claim port-masters must check buildable state *everyday* | > | against all MI changes without review or announcement, I'll resign | > | from all maintainership. | > | > No, read above. | | See above. I'm afraid automated daily notifies which | won't stop until "real fix" are too annoying. It is easy enough to put them in a folder with todays' MUA's. | If it's sent ~bi-weelky like our gnats, it's fine for me. That's fine too. | If we have enough man power to make it possible? | | But unfortunately we also need reasonable compromise | and I think that's the what the Tier system intended. We are trying to reach it. | I meant matt@, who committed the initial -fno-common change. | I don't know if it was done by Core's decision or not. He did it by himself, but that was a good change. christos
