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 440541381FA for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 17:16:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3DA7EE0A61; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 17:16:03 +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 3B399E0980 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 17:16:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from marga.jer-c2.orkz.net (D4B2706A.static.ziggozakelijk.nl [212.178.112.106]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jer) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D47A033FEB7 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 17:16:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 19:15:56 +0200 From: Jeroen Roovers To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] alpha, ia64, ppc, ppc64, sparc developers, need your attention Message-ID: <20140602191556.3c02e972@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> In-Reply-To: <1401622402.790.16.camel@belkin5> References: <538B0C00.5010705@gentoo.org> <1401622402.790.16.camel@belkin5> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.3 (GTK+ 2.24.23; i686-pc-linux-gnu) 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-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 31eaabda-514e-4dbf-8d8e-3f848ce2fe0c X-Archives-Hash: 2c8d019b0c422eb517b248b3c64abe81 On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 13:33:22 +0200 Pacho Ramos wrote: > This makes me wonder about the real status of some of this arches. I > know that now we will probably see how Agostino goes ahead and does > all the work (that is nice and I really welcome his work trying to > keep this arches in shape), but also makes me thing if makes sense to > keep this agostino-dependency for this arches more and more time. > What will occur if he is not around sometime? :/ As I've said many times before, having a single person handle much of the work most of the time causes coordinated volunteering for the work to fail as it takes more time to coordinate stuff than to do the actual work for fear of duplicating the work or because of duplicating the work. On top of these problems you get the technical issues of having a single point of failure in doing the actual testing and the bias that a successful test on one arch might cause in testing on the next one. On top of that, the automation of setting up the test targets, testing and keywording with a single implementation is more prone to errors and omissions. I could point out many examples of bug reports where this went wrong. It happens at least once a week. Forcing more eyeballs on keywording and stabilisation would greatly help in both preventing and solving such issues. jer