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 557671381F3 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:22:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B6EB8E0D88; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:22:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shimane.bonyari.local (mail.fozani.com [50.43.122.17]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DD042E0D27 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:22:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by shimane.bonyari.local (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5604F18030A; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 08:22:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 08:22:48 -0700 From: Jack Morgan To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-09-10 Message-ID: <20130829152248.GA3432@shimane.bonyari.local> References: <21020.30575.805569.383992@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 89bebadd-d0db-4234-9e8b-334253a8b8b3 X-Archives-Hash: ca9194680fb53be57f03d697de9b3512 --pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:15:14PM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 27 August 2013 10:54, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > In two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is the time > > to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the agenda > > to discuss or vote on. > > > > Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate to > > repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously > > suggested one (since the last meeting). > > > > The agenda for the next meeting will be sent out on Tuesday 2013-09-03. > > > > Please respond to the gentoo-project list, if possible. > > > > Ulrich >=20 > Hi, >=20 > I'd like to ask the council to vote on the following topics regarding the > 'minor arches' based on the feedback I received on the respective > thread in the gentoo-dev mailing list >=20 > http://marc.info/?l=3Dgentoo-dev&m=3D137708312817671&w=3D1 >=20 > Drop the following arches to ~arch >=20 > - s390 > - sh > - ia64 > - alpha > - m68k > - sparc > -(maybe ppc and ppc64?) I work on ia64, sparc, ppc and ppc64. I'm completely against this proposal in its current form. =20 > The feedback on the original question was mostly positive. > Most people agree that the long stabilization queues for these > architectures create problems for maintainers wishing to drop old version= s. Only a hand full of people responded to the email thread (possitively or negatively) so I don't think that your statement above is correct about "most people agree" since we have somewhere over a hundred developers? Please provide data to support your claim here about "problems for maintainers". I've not seen this. What I have seen is someone posting, "hey we need more people to help out with ppc" and several people helped out. In addition, we have ARCH specific hardware[1] that any developer can gain access to to do ARCH testing. I beleive this is what ago does.=20 As I mentioned in the -dev ML, I don't think this is the right approach to your concern. There should be a clear definition of what is expected =66rom an arch that is offically supported by Gentoo Linux. By offically supportd I mean ARCH/stable keyworded. If an arch fails to meet those requirements, then "demote" it to ~arch only status. This should be a GLEP. Otherwise, you are asking others to base their decision on someones perception.=20 > The council should also take into consideration that the stabilization pr= ocess > for these arches is mostly a one-man job (Agostino). This is not true. Ago does do a majority share true but he is not the only one. I do like how he does arch testing. I think we should strive to replicate his process thus removing this concern.=20 > However, some people raised the point that we should provide stable stages > for these architectures and drop everything else to ~arch. What for? So we can give the false precetion that Gentoo Linux supports a specific ARCH? > So if the Council votes 'NO' to the original question, vote on whether > only @system should be stable for these architectures. >=20 > The Council should also provide a list of the arches that wishes to > "mark" as ~arch (even if they only do stable @system) > so maintainers are aware of the situation =20 This is a confusing. What is the real problem you are trying to solve here? Stable @system but not having to worry about keywording anything else.. like a desktop (gnome, KDE)? If keywording an ARCH is a real concern, then Gentoo Linux should have a long hard look as what it wants to support as a developer community. I want to challange the council to take this as an opportunity to define this. If developer resources are limited, then Gentoo Linux can't support everything it has in the portage tree. =20 [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/dev-machines.xml --=20 Jack Morgan Pub 4096R/761D8E0A 2010-09-13 Jack Morgan > Fingerprint =3D DD42 EA48 D701 D520 C2CD 55BE BF53 C69B 761D 8E0A --pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJSH2dIAAoJEL9Txpt2HY4KteAQAIVOF5CmWKBuwmXtfO33s6vN wHOYWVbcwtbEq878V4KPkVEqljNLkZ/PnrKNgSKDt9F44ZbR8nbcy8s136z/38Bp IFic5imhuj/iW2zl0WsWffZxByvwk5NnkLUzrsGc8Gna+nQQfIbzrHezUTlZAGYB j67YnZglh/aAnoo4w8ZGTsjoWFTdEwFYtgmfgqF6Q5foMZGXbpTj10PP5IM6ei8V sCT0F6bDSk0GKvFvgQrxR785SMH1W1dWJCGylD1WRWCvhLJBd+wBLPo0p/opENzw WosdTFtPDId/GQfm3op70dqV2EFVc8bJElWDG1NwHGDCtARn+8nZZ+Ktt5Btface 86KR3A8lNyFOQGKDJRU2oR3fF1JIMIyabtD0egfyBpiaEbPrbgpfi1a856cbdcpS vHl7KZRCCdCE8A9Uc/X8ZtxikvbfBoQ+xJ8bpzw9EvARREuhVrTN4Wffxc4KcCik FHgw64IgUp7A0kr+ULyYVtc7zltcfszVc1fxssHkk9PCHWi6VJ2+pAU3MESVoWxx lCI3tzpB06U7B/geXhez5lvC4rxgb5YqS04+mhVIncUthudRGNoDue6h2jQ5MgnC MF7LFpOhueelMc96U+N0jaWPzY7SP9gIDuIf8LFHut+Lb0QrWOB3PHYrV0NfIf4E 2ncAqMbz/QXsvgaZYJi3 =zBw7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt--