Re: Results of the porter roll call (Was: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing)

Add me for armel.

Bastien
Le 2 oct. 2013 09:46, "Niels Thykier" <[email protected]> a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> The final results are in:
>
> Summary table:
> Arch           || DDs || NMs/DMs || Other || Total
> ---------------++-----++---------++-------++------
> armel          ||  3  ||       0 ||     1 ||    4
> armhf          ||  3  ||       1 ||     2 ||    6
> hurd-i386      ||  5  ||       0 ||     3 ||    8
> ia64           || *0* ||       0 ||     3 ||    3
> kfreebsd-amd64 ||  4  ||       0 ||     2 ||    6
> kfreebsd-i386  ||  4  ||       0 ||     2 ||    6
> mips           ||  1  ||       0 ||     1 ||    2
> mipsel         ||  1  ||       0 ||     1 ||    2
> powerpc[1]     || (1) ||       0 ||     2 ||   2.5?
> s390x          || *0* ||       0 ||     0 ||   *0*
> sparc[2]       ||  1  ||       0 ||     0 ||    1
>
> [1] The (1) and .5 is from a "I am not primarily a porter [...]"-remark,
> so I wasn't sure how to count it.
>
> [2] By the looks of it, if sparc was replaced by sparc64, we could be
> looking at 3 in the "Other"-column rather than 0.
>
> NMs/DMs include DMs and people currently in NM process.  The "Other"
> column may include people who said they would like to become porters
> (but would need to be introduced to the job) and thus may imply some
> active recruiting from the current porters.  This is at least true for
> hurd-i386.
>
>
>
> The current policy says that we require "5 developers" (i.e. DDs) for
> release architectures[AP], so based on that only amd64, i386 and
> hurd-i386 would pass this requirement.  It is quite possible we need to
> revise that requirement, but most of the architectures would (still) do
> well to attract a few more (DD) porters.
>   I have attached a file with my notes of who are behind those numbers.
>  If your name is missing or you believe I have miscounted something[CD]
> for an architecture listed in the table above, please reply to this
> email *promptly* (CC'ing me explicitly is fine) with your concerns or
> corrections.
>
> At this time, I have *not* updated the arch qualification table yet.  I
> will do that in a couple of days.  We will also follow up on this in the
> next bits from the release team.
>
> ~Niels
>
> [AP] http://release.debian.org/jessie/arch_policy.html
>
> [CD] I may (or may not) have been caffeine-deprived when I did the
> counting.  You are free to make assumptions about whether that has
> affected my ability to do addic^Htion or parsing your email(s) properly.
>
>