From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 6 16:20:00 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 C612716A4CE; Sun, 6 Jun 2004 16:20:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.server.rpi.edu (smtp2.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A3D743D46; Sun, 6 Jun 2004 16:20:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp2.server.rpi.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i56NJvIX007011; Sun, 6 Jun 2004 19:19:57 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <40C390C4.1000609@freebsd.org> 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> Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 19:19:56 -0400 To: Scott Long , Marcel Moolenaar From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) cc: hackers@freebsd.org 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: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 23:20:00 -0000 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... -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu