re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/sparc

[matthew green <mrg%eterna.com.au@localhost>]

> | We already have Tier definitions.
> |
> | In Tier II:
> | >> ... keeping it working is the responsibility of the user community. 
> |  :
> | >> If the port is not working at release time, a release is done
> | >> without the port and the port is moved down to the life support tier. 
> 
> Yes, but this is nebulous; according to it, I did the right thing by stepping
> in and trying to fix it. If they fail to build constantly, then it is a
> waste of time to keep building them. We can say that if they fail to build
> for more than a month, they go to tier III.

how can you say that commiting untsted code to sparc initialisation
is the right thing?  there's absolutely nothing in the above statement
(or any part of tiering) that supports this, nor has it ever been an
OK thing to do in our community.

IMO, the right fix for you to get past the build problem originally
would have been to disable -fno-common on sparc and file a PR.


.mrg.