From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1N6FAR-0006Ya-3S for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:07:15 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8D876E0C5C; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 03:07:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from QMTA02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.24]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C4B4E0C5C for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 03:07:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from OMTA18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.90]) by QMTA02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 1f6G1d0031wpRvQ52f7Ett; Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:07:14 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([98.219.163.182]) by OMTA18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 1fD71d00A3wS4Q23efD7Av; Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:13:08 +0000 Message-ID: <4AF3929A.30306@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:06:02 -0500 From: Joseph Jezak User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20091016) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations References: <200911011736.38401.Arfrever@gentoo.org> <20091102151707.0b155aab@gentoo.org> <200911021724.01069.hwoarang@gentoo.org> <20091103191005.18d98e2e@gentoo.org> <4AF1EBD8.4020502@gentoo.org> <20091104214823.64842abd@gentoo.org> <20091105091700.GA17478@eric.schwarzvogel.de> <4AF331B0.4020108@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4AF331B0.4020108@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 344c62da-1ade-4cf4-8445-e8ab73fdab5a X-Archives-Hash: 2f949d99dbcdef1ca780b01ab6cdae2f > In the past when smaller arches were not that active we used to mark > Java packages stable after testing by at least one arch team. The > probability to find arch specific issues in something like Java is not > so high so I think arrangements like this are acceptable when the arch > teams have problems keeping up. > I do know that for Java stuff, I certainly wouldn't mind if the Java team marked for ppc/ppc64. The only thing that I'd need to know is that it was tested with the IBM JVM since there certainly are differences between that and the Sun one most people use on x86/amd64 and we've seen issues in the past. -Joe