[gentoo-dev] Status of ppc and ppc64 teams.

[gentoo-dev] Status of ppc and ppc64 teams.

[Anthony G. Basile]

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.

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : blueness@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA

[gentoo-dev] Re: Status of ppc and ppc64 teams.

[Tony Vroon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 321 bytes --]

On 04/08/14 23:03, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> We are considering culling the team members accordingly.

And you are well within your rights to do so. I do have two G5 towers
now (one purchased because the other went unstable on me) and will make
an effort to set up a fresh 64UL environment.

Regards,
Tony V.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 246 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Status of ppc and ppc64 teams.

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 763 bytes --]

On 8/5/14, 12:03 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> 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.

FWIW I don't drop KEYWORDS for bumps considered major.

However, sometimes a major bump means a new dependency not keyworded for
given arch, and in that case I would drop KEYWORDS.

Note that most packages I (co-)maintain are not keyworded ~ppc/ppc64,
but this has happened e.g. for ~arm.

Paweł


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 841 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Status of ppc and ppc64 teams.

[Pacho Ramos]

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)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Status of ppc and ppc64 teams.

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 08/16/14 05:32, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> 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)
>

ago says he'll take care of the stablereq.  I've been concentrating on 
keywording.  I got about 10 keywordreqs done in the past week (mostly 
python and ruby stuff), down to about 63 and 67 bugs for ppc and ppc64 
respectively.

So that's the plan.  If anyone else besides ago would have said they can 
handle it, I would not have believed them.

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph. D.
Chair of Information Technology
D'Youville College
Buffalo, NY 14201
(716) 829-8197