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 1RSSzX-0007vp-UA for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:28:56 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 903DC21C30C; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:28:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-fx0-f53.google.com (mail-fx0-f53.google.com [209.85.161.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCEF621C2FF for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:27:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by faan15 with SMTP id n15so6891884faa.40 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 04:27:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=qPMg1t1/eu20NjK8yGswIFZzGqzRBANLuMne4K803k0=; b=p2W2gfZWHtl1Dapg70/23GNomQ2zkCjx1wPepcH5uMKMCaEhPJYmOcRCKRJBwaOGvO 6ibud72B559ufPNeYSFRSkaNlisdgB3GVgWmv2By5Mg0St6aP0HiFqJw0YPVuhq+O43t FSs5Ecfwybk+Buuzs5yAaXIyfampaMvAEw1+w= 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 10.205.120.2 with SMTP id fw2mr14044005bkc.10.1321878435771; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 04:27:15 -0800 (PST) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.174.14 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 04:27:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201111211314.20292.dilfridge@gentoo.org> References: <4ECA0EA3.8020407@gentoo.org> <201111211314.20292.dilfridge@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 07:27:15 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: I0KwA_V9LNk50KSwOeq8l24Y3Vw Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 36c4a158-a54c-40a3-b5f4-82bd3194d4c7 X-Archives-Hash: 33f611cd2441464d9ca6b14090020e7b On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > I would like to avoid the situation that we all file stable requests like mad and end up with all-but-one swamped arch teams and a neverending list of open stabilization bugs waiting for the last arch. I think that this is something worth trying to mitigate in some way (maybe only file them for the archs that wish to participate). However, I don't think we want the stable x86/amd64 experience to be dictated primarily by the size of the smallest minor arch team (among those we stabilize). Rich