| Matthew Garrett 2005-03-20, 7:48 am |
| Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> If they can all satisfy the criteria, they're likely to be doing well
> enough that there's not much *point* to dropping them -- the reason 11
> architectures are hard to manage is because they're not all being
> supported at an adequate level. The criteria listed try to give a good
> idea of what "an adequate level" is likely to look like.
That doesn't seem to match up very well with:
"there is a general feeling that twelve architectures is too many to try
to keep in sync for a release without resulting in severe schedule
slippage."
I agree with the idea that architectures that have a history of falling
behind and having severe toolchain breakage shouldn't be allowed to hold
up the other architectures from releasing, but if it's the feeling of
the release team that releasing that many architectures is basically
impossible then we may have problems.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.devel@srcf.ucam.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|