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 6A4C31381F3 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:29:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BBA94E0BF9; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:29:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23695E0BF8 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:29:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qc0-f176.google.com (mail-qc0-f176.google.com [209.85.216.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mattst88) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2ABF933ECB3 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:28:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qc0-f176.google.com with SMTP id u20so2490158qcx.21 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:28:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=J2Zy0Lbll7cw7uIzAhmiflZyhGfbBqgnCEz0ioB9CEo=; b=fb70S7hxpQrgT5oMzLQhliX27PX9SNZGnSdn5CPbGOg7DDdqzZt7AoTVP0hHRy+MQl TlduMaoBkkWs0zP9hvmoWTvnLXUDOFEhw4rqpKb1DOcnqZMeFuiJ9TIhDa4G350Tqjaq +M9QqHUyytJZy4LvlneigTuoq9ZUTEA6YZsMyOBZhUFXC4PKdjs4r6pL6IBX2x8+4rPu 66mvuc8QWFcvb+aDSEWT3jDKAEt00NCD24Tn4S85GAbSFnohRokvZu8fQdpgtxEN0kBu 5xfLRsTH5xaL/ZX13gkh17+9DCIGKjeWXE7iKoWlG4vPu+CWRFX2n4+sjS9jFxpn3ySW Pnkw== X-Received: by 10.49.116.48 with SMTP id jt16mr31365153qeb.29.1377710937455; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:28:57 -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 10.49.108.5 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:28:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <21020.30575.805569.383992@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> From: Matt Turner Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:28:37 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-09-10 To: Gentoo project list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 109be987-e2a9-442a-b5ed-438389648ca7 X-Archives-Hash: 410f7b138e01b35bf769da920b7a75b7 On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: >> >> However, some people raised the point that we should provide stable stages >> for these architectures and drop everything else to ~arch. >> >> So if the Council votes 'NO' to the original question, vote on whether >> only @system should >> be stable for these architectures. > > I'd be interested in whether anybody on the arch teams themselves > actually supports this proposal. I don't think I actually heard much > commentary in that thread one way or another from arch team members, > which is as good a reason as any to just completely drop the arch to > testing. If some spoke up about being willing to keep up with the > @system packages then considering allowing stable keywords for those > would make more sense. > > And yes, I was one of the proponents of the model I tossed out there. > A good idea that isn't going to be properly supported isn't a good > idea. > > Rich > I'm an Alpha maintainer and a MIPS (which is unstable only) maintainer. I'm against the proposal and I said so in the thread. It seemed to me that I was the only arch team member to respond. All of the +1s were from people with no stake in the architectures themselves, and for me hold very little value. I can respond with arguments and data to support my case now, or just as easily (assuming I remember to attend) the upcoming council meeting.