On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:22 AM, Thomas Bächler <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 09.02.2010 19:59, schrieb Eric Bélanger: >> It might just be an impression but it seems to me that the signoffs >> are mostly done by a small group of devs. I realize that some of you >> are busy/inactive but it would be easier and faster if everyone tried >> to do signoffs once in a while. If we rely on the same 3-4 devs for >> signoffs, then if they are busy, inactive, forget or don't use the >> package, then the signoff process become stalled. Therefore, we have >> all these bumps in the signoff threads. > > I apologize for that. I sometimes don't have the time to update my > system for a while week and when I do, I forgot which signoffs are > pending. I can't update the system if I don't know if I have some free > time after the update, because things break in testing every now and then.
This is the reason that I originally wanted the web-based signoffs. They were implemented, but never took off. The theory was that, when I updated after a week or so, I can check for "pending signoffs" on a list and check some boxes. >> As far as i686 goes, if you have a i686 chroot on your x86_64 system >> you can do some i686 signoff. Of course, you can't test boot related >> packages like the kernel or udev but command line utilities like nano >> or wget as well as libraries can be tested and signed off. > > That is true. And it is those system-critical i686 packages like udev > who are barely signed off on i686. I still use i686 on my thinkpad, FWIW
