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 <gentoo-dev+bounces-48690-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
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 <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:27:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by faan15 with SMTP id n15so6891884faa.40
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; 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: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
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: <CAGfcS_k+ABLfEEK_150S_znc7Pvf6Q1ATakoLa-n4oEsbMLA+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] making the stable tree more up-to-date
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
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
<dilfridge@gentoo.org> 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