On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 00:49, Kevyn Shortell wrote: > Well you can add me and half the ppc team to that minority. Why is it > alt arches are the only ones who are polite enough not to stomp on other > arches and actually check to make sure they don't?
Because x86 arch devs do the majority of bumps, so the chance of an x86 dev bumping another arch as well (by accident?) is much bigger ? Maybe the random arch order in KEYWORDS -between versions- is confusing after all ? I believe at some point a dev informally suggested marking stable to force testing/update of packages by other arches, i do not agree with that but if it got read by certain other devs they might do it on a regular basis. To make things more complicated there are officially non-supported archs in the tree now which are always stable and ahead of the 'indicator arch' (x86 usually) (?), adds to the confusion. > It's not a matter of being a minority or not, it's a valid point. You > break something on another arch, it is bad. It makes the person who did > it look bad, it makes the maintainers of that arch look bad, and it > makes Gentoo look bad. So how does it being a "minority" matter? Not, but should minorities not also be aware of the fact that they have a smaller user/developer base ? I see a lot of arches lagging way behind on certain packages or even having it only testing since forever, maybe being a bit more selective in what packages you can really support would do good to the alt arches, their maintainers, gentoo as a whole & keeps other devs from bumping alt arches to stable for testing (as wrong as it is). - foser -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
