On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 21:52:47 -0600 Steev Klimaszewski <[email protected]> wrote:
> The idea moves the work around, it doesn't lessen the workload at all. It is an idea to solve your actual problem, which isn't workload. > You can easily find 7 people who have an armv7, and even v6, since the > rpi is quite popular. They are easier to find than someone that has everything. > Getting them into the arch team and willing to run stable and > actually test programs is a whole other story, which lead to you > saying: > > "People that have certain architectures can just add themselves, no > extra work again." Which is for people already on the arm arch; consider the context you quote this from, rather than assuming what is not explicitly stated. > What you've thrown out as a possible solution is akin to taking a pile > of peas on the plate and moving them around the plate so that the pile > doesn't look so big. In other words, using separation to organize them properly. > It doesn't change the amount of work, but you do need to look in more > places for the work. Which you can collect back into one place. > Finding people with the hardware is the main issue, and I think I > mentioned before, some people are simply unwilling to invest in > "slow" hardware, so we have to rely on the people who DO have it. > And if that means things take longer to stable, well, why is that an > issue? Stable is supposed to be that - stable. That is because you only look for people that have all the hardware. > > > if you aren't willing to put in the work, don't expect others to. > > > > If you are unwilling to work towards solutions, don't expect others > > to. > > > > > And yes, I see what you mean now re: my reply seeming off - it > > > would seem when I hit group reply, for some reason, Evolution is > > > putting Peter Stuge into the CC, and not Tom Wijsman (despite > > > hitting group reply from your email. Maybe there should have > > > been more testing of Gnome 3.8 before it was stabled on x86... > > > > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > > http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html > > > > I don't care of "reply to" is considered harmful, It however caused problems with your e-mail. > I care that > something that worked with the previous stable is suddenly not > working with the new stable. It obviously shows that it wasn't > tested properly, and yet was marked stable. Which is your actual problem that we are trying to solve here. > So, as QA, shouldn't you be doing something about that, rather than > pointing to some URLs on the web, telling me I'm in the wrong for > using the option that is supposed to handle that properly in my > stable software? The problem lies in a different place than the software itself. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : [email protected] GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
