Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/sparc

[christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

On Aug 1,  9:42pm, tsutsui%ceres.dti.ne.jp@localhost (Izumi Tsutsui) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/sparc

| christos@ wrote:
| 
| > On Aug 1,  8:23pm, tsutsui%ceres.dti.ne.jp@localhost (Izumi Tsutsui) wrote:
| > -- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/sparc
| > 
| > | I agree you can blame port masters if they leave their ports broken
| > | more than *weeks*.
| > 
| > Fine, let's create an SLA then. Without an SLA, people don't know
| > what's to be expected.
| 
| We already have Tier definitions.
|
| In Tier II:
| >> ... keeping it working is the responsibility of the user community. 
|  :
| >> If the port is not working at release time, a release is done
| >> without the port and the port is moved down to the life support tier. 

Yes, but this is nebulous; according to it, I did the right thing by stepping
in and trying to fix it. If they fail to build constantly, then it is a
waste of time to keep building them. We can say that if they fail to build
for more than a month, they go to tier III.

| In Tier III:
| >> Organic ports get moved here if they do not complete a build for
| >> 6 months or are otherwise suspected to be broken. 
| 
| Tier was introduced to reduce extra work for developers working
| on Tier I ports.  If these are not enough for you, what's better?

| All Tier II ports would have few MD new features, so
| they don't need *daily* checks.  That's the point.

But this is not true in practice.

| We can split autobuild script into Tier I/II ones
| if people just want "0 failure" in daily buidable status.

Yes, that would be better.

| 
| > | If you claim port-masters must check buildable state *everyday*
| > | against all MI changes without review or announcement, I'll resign
| > | from all maintainership.
| > 
| > No, read above.
| 
| See above.  I'm afraid automated daily notifies which
| won't stop until "real fix" are too annoying.

It is easy enough to put them in a folder with todays' MUA's.

| If it's sent ~bi-weelky like our gnats, it's fine for me.

That's fine too.

| If we have enough man power to make it possible?
| 
| But unfortunately we also need reasonable compromise
| and I think that's the what the Tier system intended.

We are trying to reach it.

| I meant matt@, who committed the initial -fno-common change.
| I don't know if it was done by Core's decision or not.

He did it by himself, but that was a good change.

christos