-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ferris McCormick wrote: > I also like alpha, but that is not what I am responding to. And I have > to admit that I haven't followed this too closely. But the "if one arch > stabalises..." assumption can be misleading. For example, xorg-x11 > maintainer arch is x86 (spyderous will correct me if I am wrong), but I > know of at least once instance in which sparc (and a few other archs) > were stable ahead of x86. > > Granted, spyderous knew what was going on and why, but for a few days > there, the "stabilises" rule of thumb with nothing more would have led > the unsuspecting reader to believe that maintainer arch for xorg was sparc.
And this is the key, as usual: communication makes for happier devs. =) But if sparc had gone ahead and stabilized without discussing it with me, I would've been very pissed. I often have plans to add more stuff before it goes stable, and when that happens, I'm left with two options, both of which suck: * Yet another bump for the new stuff, requiring everybody on ~arch to recompile for things that often don't even affect them * Acting as if the ebuild were still in testing despite the other arch ignoring me and stabling it Thanks, Donnie -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCpjsLXVaO67S1rtsRAnGfAJ9TiSI3nAHnxL5WXNR44zyoXjOv7QCg7u4S vJgTrfKMuwxm9LWlu00ZKkk= =x8bR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
