From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 7 15:37:47 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F03016A4CE for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 15:37:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F171043D2F for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 15:37:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Received: from freebsd.org (junior-wifi.samsco.home [192.168.0.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i57FjHrw048717; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:45:18 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <40C48BA8.6090005@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 09:37:12 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040304 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Garance A Drosihn References: <40C36D31.4010003@freebsd.org> <20040606193510.GA95886@dhcp50.pn.xcllnt.net> <40C37F3C.1050602@freebsd.org> <20040606211249.GC96607@dhcp50.pn.xcllnt.net> <40C390C4.1000609@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=3.8 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on pooker.samsco.org cc: hackers@freebsd.org cc: Marcel Moolenaar Subject: Re: HEADS UP! KSE needs more attention X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 15:37:47 -0000 Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 3:46 PM -0600 6/6/04, Scott Long wrote: > >> >> At this point, I'm going to advocate that Alpha be dropped from >> Tier-1 status for 5.3 and 5-STABLE and no longer be a blocking >> item for releases. ... As I said back then, demotion is not a >> terminal condition, and I would be thrilled if someone comes >> forward in the future and brings the platform back up to date. > > > I think you have to officially demote it, with emphasis on the > point that "demotion is not a terminal condition". Then, if some > developer(s) show up and implement all the missing pieces, we > can happily announce it back in tier 1. > > But for now, say that it *IS* demoted. Not that you're advocating > that we think about maybe demoting it in the future unless someone > offers to start looking into the missing pieces. > > At the moment, it probably also makes sense to demote sparc64, > even though I own one of those. Not that we have anything against > it, but as a practical matter we haven't hit "critical mass" on it > just yet. Since I am interested in sparc64, I can take that as a > goal to help make it a tier-1 platform by 5.4-release... > One thing to note is that whatever platforms get dropped from tier-1 status will have a high probablility of not getting updated with the upcoming binutils/gcc/gdb update that is coming. Therefore, if we are going to drop a platform, we had better be very serious about it since bringing it back up might be hard. Scott