Am 09.02.2010 09:38, schrieb Jan de Groot: > These days it looks like almost nobody in our developer team uses i686 > anymore. I still have a laptop running it, but I barely use it. > > I think it's time to revise our signoff policy. I was thinking about > making it a bit more flexible: > > - signoff by 3 devs, no matter what architecture, and no bugs within 3 > days -> move > - signoff for both architectures, 2 each -> move
Actually, until now we had 2 for each architecture, minus the original commiter. So if I use x86_64, I need 1 x86_64 and 2 i686 signoffs. These days, I even move things with a single i686 signoff. I've had ppp, openvpn and wpa_supplicant in testing for over a week. I got signoffs for the latter after poking you and Roman personally (really personally, I had to threaten both of you with my arsenal of guns and nuclear weapons so you signed off) - and that although probably everyone of us uses wpa_supplicant, directly or indirectly. Still, all signoffs are for x86_64. > - no signoff, no bugs for a week -> move > > For the last thing to get implemented, this can be a bit tricky. > Sometimes developers throw something in testing, just to test something, > and it sits there for weeks without anyone knowing why it's in testing. > I would like to have every package that goes to testing getting > committed with a reason in the commit message. This way we can find out > why something is in testing and if we can easily move it out without > breaking things. We could implement a special case for this in archrelease and add this to the commit message.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
