* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote: > >If this is the case, I think that needs to be made clearer to avoid > >situations where people work to meet the criteria but are vetoed by the > >release team because there are already too many architectures. > > The main issue is the port needs to be on top of problems quickly and > effectively; in many cases we won't know what those problems are 'til > they happen (and thus can't say "your port mustn't have such-n-such a > problem"), the criteria listed are meant to be reasonably objective ways > a port team can demonstrate that they're able to handle problems that arise. Sometimes I worry that these issues aren't brought up to the attention of those who would be most likely to care about it. A call for help on -devel or -release about $arch needing xyz, or worse having the problem be outlined only in some deep thread or discussed on irc, seems less likely to generate a useful response as a mail to -$arch. I don't currently follow all of the -$arch lists (mainly just -mips) but I don't recall having seen much there about these issues. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature