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 1ECEaw-0006s3-7X for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2005 10:52:58 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j85AmfDV013815; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 10:48:41 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j85AjVmn012119 for ; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 10:45:31 GMT Received: from zh034160.ppp.dion.ne.jp ([222.3.34.160] helo=opteron246.suzuki-stubbs.home) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1ECEWk-0006Nv-BP for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2005 10:48:38 +0000 Received: by opteron246.suzuki-stubbs.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B08AC102DC1; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 19:49:37 +0900 (JST) From: Jason Stubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 19:49:35 +0900 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.90 References: <20050904143711.GD23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <20050904191609.GE23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <1125864664.11360.107.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> In-Reply-To: <1125864664.11360.107.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart4988357.hAG75fv7Z7"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200509051949.37552.jstubbs@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: d342adb7-2e49-4ff7-bd87-fc62f522f992 X-Archives-Hash: 1c28dfb8a40ee5be3a64e680fe04b151 --nextPart4988357.hAG75fv7Z7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Monday 05 September 2005 05:11, Stuart Herbert wrote: > I'd be more worried about the impact on users. From a user's point of > view, x86 is a fast-moving arch, where you can normally find an up to > date package, and where most of the major packages are actively and well > maintained by the package maintainers. The introduction of the x86 arch > team will, at some point, turn the x86 arch team into a bottleneck (just > like all the other arch teams already are), and the experience for our > users will change. Our challenge as a project is make sure that the > benefits of the x86 team outweigh the negatives in the right places, so > that we don't lose our users in the process. Somewhere in the previous thread, I read the (seemingly sarcastic)=20 suggestion that all non-arch devs start working in overlays. This would=20 seem to be a very good idea if the overlays could be made easily available= =20 via gensync. Having general ebuild devs work in overlays (perhaps shared overlays per=20 herd?) rather the main tree would seem to be better for at least two=20 reasons: * "Proper" arch testing by arch-devs (Dunno if this is valid, but other's = =20 are bringing it up in this thread, so... ;) * Users would select what areas in which the pace should be fast. This has the added benefit that mix of arch/~arch bugs that slip through a all=20 ~arch system would be picked up a lot more. =2D-=20 Jason Stubbs --nextPart4988357.hAG75fv7Z7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDHCLBxvWNPsk/ZP4RAkqAAJ42RySxPfAqfGRM2eHiY3eYBCrEwgCeIofv qbd5BU08CQ/YfUP+7h3WEnk= =/CWP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart4988357.hAG75fv7Z7-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list