Re: [gentoo-dev] Status of ppc and ppc64 teams.
On 08/16/14 05:32, Pacho Ramos wrote: El lun, 04-08-2014 a las 18:03 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió: Hi everyone, The ppc and ppc64 team members just had a meeting. One of our main issues was reconstituting those teams because they were in a state of disorganization. We've come up with a plan to move forward and address Pacho's original concern about ppc/ppc64 falling behind. Here's what we came up with: 1. We elected jmorgan as the lead for both ppc and ppc64. He's our point person for any ppc/ppc64 related issues. 2. If you are interested in helping out, whether you are a current team member or not, please speak up! There are people formally listed as part of the ppc/ppc64 herds, but there's so much inactivity, we'd like to know who's going to be active. Of course we understand there is this thing called "real life" but there is a difference between a little help and no involvement at all. We are considering culling the team members accordingly. (/me hides!) 3. We are going to try to keep ppc and ppc64 going as it has been, with the usual STABLEREQ and KEYWORDREQ. We think we can do it without overloading ourselves, especially if we get help. We do have a shared ppc64 system. The bigger problem is actually KEYWORDREQ's so we are going to request maintainers not ever drop ~ppc or ~ppc64 even when they feel a major bump has occurred, eg a deep rewrite to a library. We know this is living dangerously but we'll going to make use of the community in this regard --- either someone will bug us on a broken ~ppc/~ppc64 package, or we'll catch it at stabilization. We'll try to move ppc/ppc64 chatter to those lists, but it was important that everyone know where we're at. Then, you will finally try to keep current stable tree as big as current :/? (I am referring only to stable tree, not about dropping keywording entirely that wasn't ever the plan) ago says he'll take care of the stablereq. I've been concentrating on keywording. I got about 10 keywordreqs done in the past week (mostly python and ruby stuff), down to about 63 and 67 bugs for ppc and ppc64 respectively. So that's the plan. If anyone else besides ago would have said they can handle it, I would not have believed them. -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph. D. Chair of Information Technology D'Youville College Buffalo, NY 14201 (716) 829-8197
Re: [gentoo-dev] Status of ppc and ppc64 teams.
El lun, 04-08-2014 a las 18:03 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió: > Hi everyone, > > The ppc and ppc64 team members just had a meeting. One of our main > issues was reconstituting those teams because they were in a state of > disorganization. We've come up with a plan to move forward and address > Pacho's original concern about ppc/ppc64 falling behind. Here's what we > came up with: > > 1. We elected jmorgan as the lead for both ppc and ppc64. He's our > point person for any ppc/ppc64 related issues. > > 2. If you are interested in helping out, whether you are a current team > member or not, please speak up! There are people formally listed as > part of the ppc/ppc64 herds, but there's so much inactivity, we'd like > to know who's going to be active. Of course we understand there is this > thing called "real life" but there is a difference between a little help > and no involvement at all. We are considering culling the team members > accordingly. (/me hides!) > > 3. We are going to try to keep ppc and ppc64 going as it has been, with > the usual STABLEREQ and KEYWORDREQ. We think we can do it without > overloading ourselves, especially if we get help. We do have a shared > ppc64 system. The bigger problem is actually KEYWORDREQ's so we are > going to request maintainers not ever drop ~ppc or ~ppc64 even when they > feel a major bump has occurred, eg a deep rewrite to a library. We know > this is living dangerously but we'll going to make use of the community > in this regard --- either someone will bug us on a broken ~ppc/~ppc64 > package, or we'll catch it at stabilization. > > We'll try to move ppc/ppc64 chatter to those lists, but it was important > that everyone know where we're at. > Then, you will finally try to keep current stable tree as big as current :/? (I am referring only to stable tree, not about dropping keywording entirely that wasn't ever the plan)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Status of ppc and ppc64 teams.
On 8/5/14, 12:03 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > The bigger problem is actually KEYWORDREQ's so we are going to > request maintainers not ever drop ~ppc or ~ppc64 even when they feel > a major bump has occurred, eg a deep rewrite to a library. We know > this is living dangerously but we'll going to make use of the > community in this regard --- either someone will bug us on a broken > ~ppc/~ppc64 package, or we'll catch it at stabilization. FWIW I don't drop KEYWORDS for bumps considered major. However, sometimes a major bump means a new dependency not keyworded for given arch, and in that case I would drop KEYWORDS. Note that most packages I (co-)maintain are not keyworded ~ppc/ppc64, but this has happened e.g. for ~arm. Paweł signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Status of ppc and ppc64 teams.
Hi everyone, The ppc and ppc64 team members just had a meeting. One of our main issues was reconstituting those teams because they were in a state of disorganization. We've come up with a plan to move forward and address Pacho's original concern about ppc/ppc64 falling behind. Here's what we came up with: 1. We elected jmorgan as the lead for both ppc and ppc64. He's our point person for any ppc/ppc64 related issues. 2. If you are interested in helping out, whether you are a current team member or not, please speak up! There are people formally listed as part of the ppc/ppc64 herds, but there's so much inactivity, we'd like to know who's going to be active. Of course we understand there is this thing called "real life" but there is a difference between a little help and no involvement at all. We are considering culling the team members accordingly. (/me hides!) 3. We are going to try to keep ppc and ppc64 going as it has been, with the usual STABLEREQ and KEYWORDREQ. We think we can do it without overloading ourselves, especially if we get help. We do have a shared ppc64 system. The bigger problem is actually KEYWORDREQ's so we are going to request maintainers not ever drop ~ppc or ~ppc64 even when they feel a major bump has occurred, eg a deep rewrite to a library. We know this is living dangerously but we'll going to make use of the community in this regard --- either someone will bug us on a broken ~ppc/~ppc64 package, or we'll catch it at stabilization. We'll try to move ppc/ppc64 chatter to those lists, but it was important that everyone know where we're at. -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] E-Mail: bluen...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA
