<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07/10/2013 12:36 AM, Bill Nottingham
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:20130710003616.GB15494@nostromo.devel.redhat.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Plus, in relation to this - the llvmpipe issue brings up that one of
the 'release blocking desktops' <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>does not work<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b>. This would, by definition,
block the release unless we intend to have different criteria for ARM as a
primary arch.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Then we should remove the default label and "release blocking
desktop(s)" entirely concept with it. <br>
<br>
It's far outdated anyway and relic from the past.
<br>
<br>
Each sub-community ( be it spins be it various arch ) should need to
provide the necessary QA/Releng resources from their sub-community (
if no such thing the relevant party needs to build one ) while we QA
and Releng focus our available resources on the components that
everyone in the whole distribution use and provide the necessary sub
community with the assistance in relation to QA and Releng.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:20130710003616.GB15494@nostromo.devel.redhat.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Outside of that, how might we expect release criteria to change for ARM,
given the different deliverables that are planned?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
It's pretty self explanatory if you dont use "anaconda" or rather an
installer of some sort then those criteria items dont apply to your
arch or spin for that matter so fourth and so on so the release
criteria should be applicable in it's current form and be applied by
relevance regardless of the hardware or hardware architecture being
used, If it's not that's we need to adapt/adjust the criteria to
those limitations. <br>
<br>
JBG<br>
</body>
</html>