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 1QpitX-0000Aq-U3 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 15:34:36 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E54BB21C1A3; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 15:34:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B76F221C194 for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 15:34:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vw0-f53.google.com (mail-vw0-f53.google.com [209.85.212.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mattst88) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B0BF1B400B for ; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 15:34:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vws13 with SMTP id 13so724660vws.40 for ; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 08:34:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.28.162 with SMTP id c2mr3739723vdh.515.1312644848118; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 08:34:08 -0700 (PDT) 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 Received: by 10.52.168.1 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 08:33:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E3D10B0.80107@gentoo.org> References: <1312307887.2901.2@NeddySeagoon> <4E38B4D9.7020603@gentoo.org> <1312404150.2882.2@NeddySeagoon> <20110804200630.GE4840@comet.ucsd.edu> <1312496361.2864.0@NeddySeagoon> <4E3BC710.6090402@gentoo.org> <20110805104952.GK81662@gentoo.org> <4E3BCD6E.8030101@gentoo.org> <4E3BED69.6060003@gentoo.org> <20110805134412.GC17729@gentoo.org> <4E3BF61F.7050300@gentoo.org> <4E3C1B32.2020105@gentoo.org> <4E3C39C5.3010700@gentoo.org> <4E3CB0E3.4030108@gentoo.org> <4E3D10B0.80107@gentoo.org> From: Matt Turner Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 11:33:48 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 030001f9734ddfe2af85d1c0703c60c8 On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: > I never said to completely drop these arches. When did I say that? I > just want a more realistic approach on how well an arch is supported. > Why you people are afraid to admit that we have problems? Having an arch > with constantly >200 stabilization bugs open clearly proves that the > manpower cannot handle the situation. I think it's important to put some numbers on this. total stable keyword developers alpha 72 51 12 3 arm 69 22 18 5 hppa 103 71 13 4 (really 2) ia64 73 45 20 2 mips 21 0 5 6 (wtf?) ppc 233 171 29 5 ppc64 80 37 24 3 sparc 110 63 27 3 x86 80 2 13 amd64 40 1 7 The only architecture that is seriously backlogged in ppc, which is probably due to the fact that we used to have lots of users. Just a couple of weeks ago, ppc64 was in the same situation, until xarthisius went on a stabilization/keywording spree. So it's definitely possible to reduce this to a reasonable level, but I think ppc should probably consider dropping some keywords. hppa is higher than some others because hppa/linux in general isn't very stable. sparc is above 100 because armin76 does all the keywording by himself (I think?). I actually gave up long ago on my idea of stabilizing mips. It's an impossible task to do by yourself. Maybe one day if mips becomes a more common architecture. On alpha, we (mostly armin76) drop keywords pretty regularly when we get a stabilization request for a package we've never heard of, and I'd think other architectures do the same. The architecture teams know what they can and can't support. Matt