I probably use koji in a bit different way than Fedora maintainers as I do not concentrate on few packages but instead check which ones are broken (mostly on aarch64 secondary architecture).
My workflow goes like that:
1. package "xyz" fails on aarch64 2. check logs to find out is it dependency or build issue 3. check how situation on primary look 4. check how it looks on other secondary architectures 5. check bugs reported against package (there could be fix) 6. do local build 7. work on fixing 8. create patch 9. do scratch build on primary/secondaries 10. provide patch via bugzilla/irc/git
So the question is: are there plans to integrate primary and secondary architectures into one koji?
This would allow to present state of each architecture/tag:
packagename ----------------------------------------------------------------------- x86-64 | OK 1.2-3.fc24 | FAIL 1.1-7.fc23 | OK 1.1-2.fc22 i686 | OK 1.2-3.fc24 | FAIL 1.1-7.fc23 | OK 1.1-2.fc22 armhf | OK 1.2-3.fc24 | FAIL 1.1-7.fc23 | OK 1.1-2.fc22 aarch64 | FAIL 1.2-2.fc24 | OK 1.1-6.fc23 | OK 1.1-2.fc22 ppc64 | OK 1.2-1.fc24 | FAIL 1.1-7.fc23 | OK 1.1-2.fc22 ppc64le | OK 1.2-1.fc24 | FAIL 1.1-7.fc23 | OK 1.1-2.fc22 s390 | OK 1.2-3.fc24 | FAIL 1.1-7.fc23 | OK 1.1-2.fc22 s390x | OK 1.2-3.fc24 | FAIL 1.1-7.fc23 | OK 1.1-2.fc22
Then both package maintainers and architecture maintainers will see how situation looks like. All newer NVRs would wait in a queue like it is now with koji-shadow setups. And with links to builds being present in this table it would be easier to follow ftbfs situations.
How it looks now? Koji web interface provides list of completed or failed builds. If I see that 'somename' failed then I have to check all builds of it to check did it completed in newer NVR or not. Or write scripts which will follow fedmsg and query all koji instances (there are at least two such on my hard drive).