Re: Release sprint results - team changes, auto-rm and arch status
On 2013-11-28 21:24, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> I've found the builds on the less used architectures have been useful
> for flushing out unusual bugs, particularly when the code ships with
> many test cases and it exposes problems for big endian machines, etc.
>
> Also, kFreeBSD and HURD are both kind of special in that they are not
> Linux, it would be good to keep one or the other around even if other
> architectures are culled more aggressively.
>
Keeping them around is different from them being considered as release
architectures (or even just keeping them in testing). Keeping these
architectures in testing do involve a burden, like blocking testing
migration when they FTBFS[1].
In theory they could all stay in sid provided that the relevant teams
approve it. I believe the FTP masters are the authority on that.
However, I would not be surprised if DSA were to object to maintaining
machines running sid.
~Niels
[1] Having them in testing as a "F***ED" and "BREAK" arch would remove
that burden, but you might as well just use sid then.
Reply to: