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 1ECj9o-00069A-6e for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:31:00 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j86JQqOB001597; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 19:26:52 GMT Received: from smtp04.gnvlscdb.sys.nuvox.net (smtp.nuvox.net [64.89.70.9]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j86JP6GL023245 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 19:25:06 GMT Received: from cgianelloni.nuvox.net (216.215.202.4.nw.nuvox.net [216.215.202.4]) by smtp04.gnvlscdb.sys.nuvox.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j86JTKh9005269 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 15:29:21 -0400 Received: by cgianelloni.nuvox.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 6 Sep 2005 15:27:33 -0400 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep From: Chris Gianelloni To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <431DC30A.9050503@gentoo.org> References: <20050904143711.GD23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <1125863332.11366.89.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> <20050904210535.24ab8a39@snowdrop.home> <1125865598.11360.122.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> <431B5D0B.4000808@gentoo.org> <1126016886.19807.109.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <431DC30A.9050503@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-3N4ekS4MtuWxkX19cBRv" Organization: Gentoo Linux Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 15:27:32 -0400 Message-Id: <1126034852.10430.0.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> 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 2.2.3 X-Archives-Salt: 37a59044-c91b-4944-af2e-82d9edf2cae3 X-Archives-Hash: 11afc5fadb5c1ba187990f56a4cab2f1 --=-3N4ekS4MtuWxkX19cBRv Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 12:25 -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote: > Chris Gianelloni wrote: >=20 > >On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 22:46 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: > > =20 > > > >>Stuart Herbert wrote: > >> =20 > >> > >>>I've no personal problem with arch teams sometimes needing to do their > >>>own thing, provided it's confined to a specific class of package. > >>>Outside of the core packages required to boot & maintain a platform, > >>>when is there ever a need for arch maintainers to decide that they kno= w > >>>better than package maintainers? > >>> =20 > >>> > >>I assume you're talking of the case where arch team and maintainer's ar= ch are=20 > >>the same. I think normally package maintainers can decide better whethe= r their=20 > >>package should go stable on their arch than an arch team, as they get a= ll the=20 > >>bugs for it. On the other hand, we can't define a "maintainer arch" in = many=20 > >>cases, so either we leave the authority to the arch team or we'll just = have an=20 > >>x86 arch team without the expected effects. > >> =20 > >> > > > >I still think that the concept of a "maintainer arch" is completely > >broken anyway. I like the idea of adding something like a "maint" > >KEYWORD, or something similar to mark that the ebuild is considered > >"stable" material by the maintainer. =20 > > >=20 > This keyword would be independent of any arch right? Correct. It would be a KEYWORD or some other variable that says "I'm the maintainer, and I say it is ready to go stable" without relying on any particular architecture to be an indicator of stability. --=20 Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager Games - Developer Gentoo Linux --=-3N4ekS4MtuWxkX19cBRv 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) iD8DBQBDHe2kkT4lNIS36YERAiEMAJ9prFxLhNjg88vGkPE7TiW+7P18GwCeIvBP BUAyK72mMmGGnF7bZpQPRc8= =YB3i -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-3N4ekS4MtuWxkX19cBRv-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list