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 6FA8A13877A for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 17:33:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7C241E0E53; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 17:33:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BE13E0E04 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 17:33:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1659633F909 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 17:33:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.948 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EeJihq3LqSLK for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 17:33:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C5FD33FD8A for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 17:33:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XB5qN-0007xd-Mo for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 19:33:15 +0200 Received: from ppp118-209-216-121.lns20.mel6.internode.on.net ([118.209.216.121]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 19:33:15 +0200 Received: from kensington by ppp118-209-216-121.lns20.mel6.internode.on.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 19:33:15 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Michael Palimaka Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: About current ppc/ppc64 status Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 03:33:02 +1000 Message-ID: References: <1406316517.20388.22.camel@gentoo.org> <20140726153904.GA13389@linux1> <20140726162011.GB13389@linux1> <201407261832.01411.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <20140726171940.GA14029@linux1> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp118-209-216-121.lns20.mel6.internode.on.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 In-Reply-To: <20140726171940.GA14029@linux1> X-Archives-Salt: a21f19dc-7d42-47b5-9a0d-9fb07c60956a X-Archives-Hash: 4c3541b39585a2a3110a452827973576 On 07/27/2014 03:19 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > If an arch team isn't going to honor a stable request, shouldn't they > remove themselves from it and say so? > > Also, if an arch team does that, does that mean we don't have to file > stable requests for that arch on future versions of the package? When armin did stabilisation for minor archs in the past, he took the opportunity to evaluate whether it was still useful to have the package stable. In many cases for small random packages, stable keywords were dropped to reduce future workload. I always thought it was a pretty good strategy.