From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ECCpD-0001RV-CY for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2005 08:59:35 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j858tmOS001116; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 08:55:48 GMT Received: from ctb-mesg8.saix.net (ctb-mesg8.saix.net [196.25.240.88]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j858rXKq020719 for ; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 08:53:33 GMT Received: from gateway.lan (wblv-146-249-139.telkomadsl.co.za [165.146.249.139]) by ctb-mesg8.saix.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2821DBE1A for ; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 10:56:06 +0200 (SAST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gateway.lan (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BEE93A248C for ; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 10:30:19 +0200 (SAST) Received: from gateway.lan ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (gateway.lan [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 11639-10 for ; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 10:30:04 +0200 (SAST) Received: from lycan.lan (lycan.lan [192.168.0.5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gateway.lan (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EA313A241D for ; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 10:30:04 +0200 (SAST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep From: Martin Schlemmer To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20050904231952.35e99dc1@snowdrop.home> References: <20050904143711.GD23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <20050904194141.4059a55e@snowdrop.home> <20050904191609.GE23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <1125864664.11360.107.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> <20050904215705.1490579e@snowdrop.home> <1125870200.11361.147.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> <20050904231952.35e99dc1@snowdrop.home> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-7+ZuUtGR+deVLHbkV4Xe" Organization: Gentoo Foundation Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 10:56:32 +0200 Message-Id: <1125910592.30327.19.camel@lycan.lan> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.3.8 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at nosferatu.za.org X-Archives-Salt: f54fc2c9-b819-4133-a39c-c131ce4001fa X-Archives-Hash: 4be854bf8029427e1f8842ac3264580d --=-7+ZuUtGR+deVLHbkV4Xe Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 23:19 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 22:43:20 +0100 Stuart Herbert > wrote: > | > The only reason certain arch teams are considered a bottleneck is > | > because they do real testing. As opposed to x86 or ppc, where > | > packages which won't even unpack get marked stable... > |=20 > | You can't help yourself, can you? You have to have a pop at > | someone :( >=20 > It's the truth, it's a problem and it needs fixing. >=20 And I am sure everybody know why it was not a problem before, but is now. You have you wish, we are working on it, and you had your chance at trolling, but for the love of all, stop it if its not something constructive that needs adding. > | It's impossible for an arch team to keep pace with the rate of change > | in the tree and do adequate testing too. No arch team is currently > | big enough. Arch teams are always going to lag behind what package > | maintainers do. It's a simple numbers game. > | > | There are only two arch teams with 20 or more members (amd64 and ppc), > | as of 22:30 BST today. They have to deal with the output of approx > | 155 herds, plus countless changes that don't go through herds in the > | first place. The numbers speak for themselves. Arch teams are > | bottlenecks. Until the numbers change, that won't change. >=20 > You want numbers? >=20 > A total of 31 ebuilds seems outdated on sparc > A total of 72 ebuilds seems outdated on x86 >=20 > A total of 3634 packages are keyworded on sparc > A total of 7793 packages are keyworded on x86 >=20 > Real numbers. Not guesswork based upon misconceptions. >=20 Which is about two times more outdated packages on x86 than sparc, and with the amount keyworded on x86 being about twice that of sparc, it really seems to me like the ratio is fairly the same, and both are in the same boat with regards to whatever the numbers had to prove? --=20 Martin Schlemmer --=-7+ZuUtGR+deVLHbkV4Xe Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDHAhAqburzKaJYLYRAqgvAJ4x6UqWL/zXjQo71ffNMi0RlODT7gCfTX7A pdmuR/IFu/A+b/cuDhPKNCo= =ESHP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-7+ZuUtGR+deVLHbkV4Xe-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list