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 0CD981381F3 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:22:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8F691E0B5A; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:22:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from spot.xmw.de (spot.xmw.de [176.9.87.236]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 001AAE0B1C for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:22:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2001:6f8:1cd1:0:21d:72ff:fe88:9ac1] (x.l.xmw.de [IPv6:2001:6f8:1cd1:0:21d:72ff:fe88:9ac1]) by spot.xmw.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EB5D114113478 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:22:22 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <521F2EEE.3080900@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:22:22 +0200 From: Michael Weber User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130807 Thunderbird/17.0.8 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 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-09-10 References: <21020.30575.805569.383992@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <521EE590.9060100@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 22698d55-78b2-4622-bb64-cce41f3760e2 X-Archives-Hash: c51ced9b6ac110d3fd8b2c0089596efb On 08/29/2013 10:32 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 29 August 2013 07:09, Michael Weber wrote: >> On 08/28/2013 01:15 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> http://marc.info/?l=gentoo-dev&m=137708312817671&w=1 >>> >>> Drop the following arches to ~arch >>> >>> - s390 >>> - sh >>> - ia64 >>> - alpha >>> - m68k >>> - sparc >>> -(maybe ppc and ppc64?) >> make that x86 to be consequent. > > I don't think being sarcastic adds anything valuable to the conversation Neither does diving partial summaries or exaggerating the reality. > >>> >>> 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 versions. >> Is this the only motivation? Drop all the effort that has been put into >> stabilization work on minor arches just for some impatient maintainers? > > Others reasons are explained to the thread in -dev ML > >> >> Keywording/Stabilization is a process we all agreed on joining, so live >> with it. >> >>> The council should also take into consideration that the stabilization process >>> for these arches is mostly a one-man job (Agostino). >> It's the same one man show for amd64 and x86. > > It is not. Neither is it for minor arches. There are others doing stabilizations, too. >> Minor arches tend to have less cpu/io performance than this fancy >> show-off amd64 dev machines. >> Running the @world\@system on bleeding edge might be a never ending >> compile job. > > This is one of the reasons they are so slow. And combining it with the > one-man show argument, > you see why we have problems. Moreover, as you can see, nobody from > these arch teams > ever replied (apart from Matt) which kinda proves my point. I did stabilizations on sparc/ppc before ago kicked in. A arm/ppc/sparc arch member. -- Michael Weber Gentoo Developer web: https://xmw.de/ mailto: Michael Weber