[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy

2014-01-24 Thread Duncan
Tom Wijsman posted on Fri, 24 Jan 2014 19:26:41 +0100 as excerpted: > On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 10:46:06 + "Steven J. Long" > wrote: > >> Tom Wijsman wrote: >> > "Steven J. Long" wrote: >> > > What? Without a stable tree, Gentoo is useless afaic. >> > >> > It moves us closer to upstream releases,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy

2014-01-24 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 14:29:02 -0600 Steev Klimaszewski wrote: > On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 20:29 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 12:10:30 -0600 > > Steev Klimaszewski wrote: > > > > > The problem isn't finding someone that has everything - we have > > > people that test on ARMv5, so

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy

2014-01-24 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 20:29 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 12:10:30 -0600 > Steev Klimaszewski wrote: > > > The problem isn't finding someone that has everything - we have people > > that test on ARMv5, some that test on ARMv6, we have some that test on > > ARMv7 - until ALL of t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy

2014-01-24 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 12:10:30 -0600 Steev Klimaszewski wrote: > The problem isn't finding someone that has everything - we have people > that test on ARMv5, some that test on ARMv6, we have some that test on > ARMv7 - until ALL of them are tested, it doesn't get stabled on ARM. > So again, it just

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy

2014-01-24 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 10:46:06 + "Steven J. Long" wrote: > Tom Wijsman wrote: > > "Steven J. Long" wrote: > > > What? Without a stable tree, Gentoo is useless afaic. > > > > It moves us closer to upstream releases, a little more bleeding > > edge; a lot of users and developers run that already

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy

2014-01-24 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 18:26 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 21:52:47 -0600 > Steev Klimaszewski wrote: > > > The idea moves the work around, it doesn't lessen the workload at all. > > It is an idea to solve your actual problem, which isn't workload. > > You can easily find 7 peop

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy

2014-01-24 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 21:52:47 -0600 Steev Klimaszewski wrote: > The idea moves the work around, it doesn't lessen the workload at all. It is an idea to solve your actual problem, which isn't workload. > You can easily find 7 people who have an armv7, and even v6, since the > rpi is quite popular

[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy

2014-01-24 Thread Steven J. Long
Tom Wijsman wrote: > "Steven J. Long" wrote: > > What? Without a stable tree, Gentoo is useless afaic. > > It moves us closer to upstream releases, a little more bleeding edge; a > lot of users and developers run that already, it is found to be useful. What? More vague. As are many of your philos