On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 04:35:45AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> I would kinda quibble with that page. I would especially
disagree with
> the text "To put it simply: These are the architectures for which
> Fedora will delay a release if they are not functional." That is *not*
> the actual definition of a 'primary arch', and I think whoever added it
> had an imperfect understanding.
>
> I like wiki pages, but when they're wrong, they're wrong. =)
Maybe it's better to say that the definition (as you are using it) has
become more precise with time? The wiki history shows that phrasing as
being there since the 2008 import from MoinMoin.
Or, thinking about it another way: the terms are overloaded. There is
the technical aspect of koji builds. There is the aspect of release
blocking. And, there's the aspect of what we promote as a project and
make user facing. Adam, I think you're arguing that we really shouldn't
use "primary" and "secondary" for anything but the first. This is
hard,
because they're powerful words that _seem_ useful for describing main
effort vs. other. I think that unless we come up with some other
agreed-upon and equally powerful language, the less-technical sense is
going to keep creeping back into use. Or, we could focus on the build
system and use "koji-primary" and "koji-secondary" for that concept,
making clear that it's technical jargon.
Maybe I'm overthinking, but this whole thread suggests that I'm not the
only one. :)
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader