From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Jun  6 14:27:57 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 3C97A16A4CE; Sun,  6 Jun 2004 14:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id E9CF643D1F; Sun,  6 Jun 2004 14:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i56LRutD012553;
	Sun, 6 Jun 2004 17:27:56 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 17:27:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com
To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net>
In-Reply-To: <20040606211249.GC96607@dhcp50.pn.xcllnt.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10406061717480.7928-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: hackers@freebsd.org
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: HEADS UP! KSE needs more attention
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 21:27:57 -0000

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 02:31:56PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> 
> > As with Alpha,
> > the fate of a platform rests on the people who are willing to work on
> > it, not on whether it is in a particular list.
> 
> Agreed, but it's the projects responsibility to take the tierness and
> the intend to support multiple platforms serious and not to chicken out
> at the first signs of complications or hurdles. We labeled sparc64 as
> a tier 1 platform and we better deal with the consequences.

Not to take away from the tremendous effort that jake had done for
sparc64, but it should really take more than one or two supporting
developers to obtain tier 1 support.  People come and go, and
tierness should take that into account.

> As for alpha, we don't even seem to be able to degrade it to tier 2
> without losing face. kris@ has already stopped package builds for it
> for his own sake.

We shouldn't keep an arch at tier 1 just to save face.  Better to just
lower it to tier 2 and be done with it.  My $.02, FWIW.