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.

Grant Goodyear  
Gentoo Developer
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

Attachment: pgpVRXLsKvjd5.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to