Moving MIPS to Tier 2

[John Baldwin]

On Monday, October 09, 2017 07:15:49 AM Warner Losh wrote:
> On Oct 8, 2017 9:55 PM, "John Baldwin" <jhb at freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
> While reviewing the Tier document in the committers guide I noticed that
> mips
> is currently listed as Tier 2.
> 
> 
> I thought it was tier 3. Is this a typo?

Yes.  Only it and riscv are tier 3, but both have sources checked into base
svn.  riscv doesn't have enough developer base to move up though.

> However, I think it probably meets the
> definition for Tier 2 (it not in external source code control for example)
> and even some features of Tier 1 (cross-built packages are available).  One
> note is that Tier 2 does require 3 active developers, but I think we
> probably
> have that.  What do other folks think?
> 
> 
> I think we are close enough.  Most things work, but not all. We have more
> rough edges in MIPS than any other mainstream FreeBSD port. However, the
> rough edges are consistent with where arm was a few years ago on it's path
> to being nearly tier 1.

Yes, but it's also true that some rough edges are ok for tier 2.  The existing
language for tier 3 implies that the source isn't even checked into the tree,
outside of toolchain bits and seems intended for new architectures during their
incubation period.  MIPS is well beyond that stage.

I'm happy to propose this to core@, but I wanted to see what the community
thought first.  I'll wait a few more days, but if there isn't any other feedback
I'll move forward.

-- 
John Baldwin