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 5EDF6138262 for ; Sat, 21 May 2016 04:48:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3BC2FE086F; Sat, 21 May 2016 04:48:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58CD3E086B for ; Sat, 21 May 2016 04:48:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw0-f169.google.com (mail-yw0-f169.google.com [209.85.161.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mattst88) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CC5C8340BFA for ; Sat, 21 May 2016 04:48:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-f169.google.com with SMTP id x189so127467295ywe.3 for ; Fri, 20 May 2016 21:48:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWcwa+Pv5e8oMNly8kozP+GVA/gdLlR517MC8VDABfWE+UdfOcMU12rVMOFM0tdMelwBpVSC2AYrbpijQ== X-Received: by 10.129.109.200 with SMTP id i191mr4274478ywc.87.1463806095467; Fri, 20 May 2016 21:48:15 -0700 (PDT) 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 Received: by 10.37.214.147 with HTTP; Fri, 20 May 2016 21:47:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20160519165130.7e9bc385@wim.fritz.box> From: Matt Turner Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 21:47:56 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] new developers' keyword requests To: gentoo development Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: fecb154e-425f-4aed-904b-756ddc79c37e X-Archives-Hash: b9abfcff1d29904c327dfee8d3bbedac On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > To make sure I understand what you're getting at, are you saying some > devs get on board and then request to add keywords to packages that they > already maintain? No, you've misunderstood. He's saying people add new packages and then speculatively add keywords for a bunch of architectures that they haven't tested. This causes unnecessary packages to be keyworded on archs that don't want them and can hardly afford the extra load. The appropriate thing to do when adding a new package is to add only keywords you can test and maintain (likely just ~amd64), and then file a keyword request to ask arch teams to keyword the package if appropriate, which leaves the choice to them.