Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:56:51AM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
> That let me raise a problem I see with such an infrastructure. Imagine
> an FTBFS on an SCC architecture (let's say arch X needs an autotools
> update). If it is not possible to have a high severity for this bug
> (because it is "only" an SCC arch) , I am almost sure that it would be
> ignored by a lot of developers. That would say that all SCC
> architectures will be quickly unusable...
Which will be a de facto drop of that archs, yes.
Many serious bugs on some archs are already ignored by maintainers for a
long time - until a release is coming and they realizes that their package
is being held back from migrating to testing by those archs. Then the
maintainer usually whines about those fscking slow and unused archs being a
showstopper for the release.