Re: Feedback on secondary architecute promotion requirements draft

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

Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:04:57 +0100
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 09:49:34AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > Release engineering find the tooling and methods of composing to be
> > acceptable to be integrated into the fedora release process,
> Ok, so there's no expectation that release engineering have
> experience with the architecture?

No, We get asked to do stuff if we say no, we get asked why, if its a
tooling issue the tooling gets fixed if its that we dont want to do it
we get told thats not ok, as long as its supportable and there is
people to lean on when needed then it will happen. in the end it comes
down to what the community wants. when we hit issues we work with the
teams with the knowledge to get the issue resolved. 

> > Infrastructure is able to provide adequate power, cooling and rack
> > space, additionally there is enough storage to accommodate the
> > additional architecture.
> Ditto here.

Much the same reasons. Infrastructure is full of very smart people. we
hit weird issues with the harware we have and make it work. 

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