From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3958138A2F for ; Sat, 16 Aug 2014 09:32:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 90C24E0969; Sat, 16 Aug 2014 09:32:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76D27E0956 for ; Sat, 16 Aug 2014 09:32:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.223] (66.175.16.95.dynamic.jazztel.es [95.16.175.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 778C7340257; Sat, 16 Aug 2014 09:32:22 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1408181538.14509.1.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Status of ppc and ppc64 teams. From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: ppc , ppc64 Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 11:32:18 +0200 In-Reply-To: <53E00322.20101@gentoo.org> References: <53E00322.20101@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.4 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: ef564485-ea31-485d-bb77-7407cd26d5af X-Archives-Hash: 38ce5a0d4c1d7448e500e46f72e52afe 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)