Mark Loeser wrote: [Mon Jun 05 2006, 03:25:02PM CDT] > Well, since you decided to bring this up on here, I guess we'll just try > to address everything.
Where else would I have brought this up? Paraphrasing, I noted that the x86 team is now doing peer review, I asked if other arch teams are doing the same thing, and I asked how the new system is working, and whether or not the old fears that peer review would slow things down too much seemed to be valid. If that isn't a question for the Gentoo development list, I don't know what is. Nowhere did I say anything evenly remotely negative about what the x86 team is doing, as far as I can tell. If I did, then I sincerely apologize, as it was definitely not my intention. > Peer review should be part of any stablization process. The glep that > *you* wrote even provides for it: > > For a package to move to stable, the following guidelines must be met: > ... > * The relevant arch team must agree to it. Heh. That'll teach me! > Maybe it was not what you intended, but we have not been slowing down > any process as far as I'm aware, since we get to our bugs as quickly as > we possibly can. And every arch team has their own keywording policy. > I don't see why x86 can not have the poilcy that we decided on. If you > have MIPS hardware and you mark something ~mips, I'm pretty sure they > will be pissed if they didn't give you prior permission. Probably the > same for a few archs. I didn't say that the x86 policy was a bad one. I was rather hoping that x86 was doing peer review and at least one other arch team wasn't, since then we could try to make some sort of quantitative comparison. -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
Description: PGP signature