Re: Feedback on secondary architecute promotion requirements draft

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 20:10:12 -0700
Brendan Conoboy <blc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> This is feedback vs the current version of the following web page:


>  > There must be adequate representation for the architecture on the
>  > Fedora infrastructure and release engineering teams.
> This makes sense, but what is adequate?  Perhaps 1 distinct person in 
> each group saying "I will be responsible for $ARCH?"  What if only 1 
> person wants to be the secondary representative in both groups?

- From a releng perspective the only grounds that I could object on are
that the tooling to do composes is not acceptable. since a secondary
arch should be using the same tooling as primary I cant make that
objection. If the community wants something it happens.  I wont speak
for Kevin but the only grounds I know of for objection from
Infrastructure are lack of rackspace/power/cooling or a lack of
sufficient disk space for /mnt/koji otherwise if its what the community
wants it happens.  so really that should be reworded to something like 

Release engineering find the tooling and methods of composing to be
acceptable to be integrated into the fedora release process,
Infrastructure is able to provide adequate power, cooling and rack
space, additionally there is enough storage to accommodate the
additional architecture.

Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)

devel mailing list

[Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Legacy Announce]     [Home]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel List]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

Add to Google Powered by Linux