[arch-dev-public] Driver Maintainers

[Aaron Griffin]

On 5/11/07, James <iphitus at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/12/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/11/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 2007/5/11, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>:
> > > > To get the ball rolling, perhaps we could start a simple wiki page
> > > > where a user can come in and list the hardware and arch packages they
> > > > use that may be unique - we can figure out a plan of attack while
> > > > gathering this data.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I've brought this on some time ago too after finding that dead
> > > page on devwiki.
> > > Also, it will greatly help in cases when confirmation of a bug is needed.
> >
> > Started - as it says, it's a stub.  I just threw out ideas - no need
> > to discuss it, if you think my ideas are dumb, go ahead and change it.
> >  I'll do some procmail magic tonight and start sending mails to myself
> > with this.
> >
> > http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Driver_Testing
>
> Oh cool :)
>
> How about we take the suggestion a little bit further, create an
> [arch-testing] mailing list, where we can send a mail, so that people
> who use a package, can know it's in testing.
>
> Currently there's no notification if something goes into testing, so
> it nearly always goes in without people knowing. If people knew, then
> they'd be able to selectively take things from testing, pacman -S
> testing/package and give us feedback.

That would be useful, and probably very easy to do (arch-commits does
the exact same thing, but doesn't respect tags... I'd have to figure
out how to handle that...)

> If not, we could at least extend that wiki page to more than drivers.

The problem is that hardware related stuff has it's own separate set
of kinks, to the point where I'd like to see some extra level of
information here.  For example, the new xf86-video-intel may work on
most cards, but tester Joe has an old card that seems to segfault.

Package notification for testing though is a good idea, but I think
the actual hardware issue is a different beast, and it'd be nice to
know who is testing and what hardware they have.