Architecture promotion/demotion criteria

[Josh Boyer]

Hi All,

I've been following the efforts of the other architecture teams
towards building F13/F14 while bumbling along trying to get ppc back
up and running.  This has gotten me thinking of some of the criteria
surrounding primary and secondary architectures.  Or, to be frank,
lack thereof.

The only criteria I can find for Primary and Secondary architectures
are on the Architectures page where their definitions are found.  I
was wondering if we have a set of criteria that we can define that
would allow an architecture to be promoted from secondary to primary.
I would expect that the actual decision to promote would be made by
either FESCo or the Board.  Having a set of criteria that can be used
as a checklist would help them make such decisions in the event that
an architecture team were to ask for promotion.

Similarly, I was wondering if we wanted to have a more concrete set of
criteria in place for demotion as well.  I know that lack of downloads
and the perceived cost/benefit ratio for ppc were the primary reasons
for demotion a year and a half ago.  Do we have other things that
could cause demotion as well?

josh

[Tom Callaway]

On 12/13/2010 02:10 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>  The only criteria I can find for Primary and Secondary architectures
>  are on the Architectures page where their definitions are found.  I
>  was wondering if we have a set of criteria that we can define that
>  would allow an architecture to be promoted from secondary to primary.
>  I would expect that the actual decision to promote would be made by
>  either FESCo or the Board.  Having a set of criteria that can be used
>  as a checklist would help them make such decisions in the event that
>  an architecture team were to ask for promotion. 
Sounds sensible, perhaps we should start writing one.

>  Similarly, I was wondering if we wanted to have a more concrete set
> of
>  criteria in place for demotion as well.  I know that lack of downloads
>  and the perceived cost/benefit ratio for ppc were the primary reasons
>  for demotion a year and a half ago.  Do we have other things that
>  could cause demotion as well? 
Well, looking at the current primaries (x86/x86_64), I don't know that
they'd ever be demoted, but it wouldn't hurt to document some criteria
here too.

~tom

==
Fedora Project

[Dennis Gilmore]

On Monday, December 13, 2010 02:56:57 pm Tom Callaway wrote:
>  On 12/13/2010 02:10 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>  > The only criteria I can find for Primary and Secondary architectures
>  > are on the Architectures page where their definitions are found.  I
>  > was wondering if we have a set of criteria that we can define that
>  > would allow an architecture to be promoted from secondary to primary.
>  > I would expect that the actual decision to promote would be made by
>  > either FESCo or the Board.  Having a set of criteria that can be used
>  > as a checklist would help them make such decisions in the event that
>  > an architecture team were to ask for promotion.
>  
>  Sounds sensible, perhaps we should start writing one. 
Sounds fine to me also,
realistically of the current ones the only one i can 
see becoming a primary arch is arm.  but knowing when and how to do that would 
be useful.

>  
>  > Similarly, I was wondering if we wanted to have a more concrete set of
>  > criteria in place for demotion as well.  I know that lack of downloads
>  > and the perceived cost/benefit ratio for ppc were the primary reasons
>  > for demotion a year and a half ago.  Do we have other things that
>  > could cause demotion as well?
>  
>  Well, looking at the current primaries (x86/x86_64), I don't know that
>  they'd ever be demoted, but it wouldn't hurt to document some criteria
>  here too. 
maybe one day we could drop x86  :)

Dennis

[Josh Boyer]

I thought I sent this to the list on 12/15, but I just noticed it only
went to Tom.  My apologies.

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Tom Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  On 12/13/2010 02:10 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > The only criteria I can find for Primary and Secondary architectures
> > are on the Architectures page where their definitions are found.  I
> > was wondering if we have a set of criteria that we can define that
> > would allow an architecture to be promoted from secondary to primary.
> > I would expect that the actual decision to promote would be made by
> > either FESCo or the Board.  Having a set of criteria that can be used
> > as a checklist would help them make such decisions in the event that
> > an architecture team were to ask for promotion.
>
>  Sounds sensible, perhaps we should start writing one. 
My initial promotion suggestions would be:

1) Architecture released within 2 weeks of primary Fedora release.
2) Well maintained by an architecture maintainer and/or team for two
full Fedora releases as a secondary arch.
3) Suitable hardware in place to deal with load of being a primary architecture
4) Successful execution of a well documented test plan with recorded results.

> > Similarly, I was wondering if we wanted to have a more concrete
> set of
> > criteria in place for demotion as well.  I know that lack of downloads
> > and the perceived cost/benefit ratio for ppc were the primary reasons
> > for demotion a year and a half ago.  Do we have other things that
> > could cause demotion as well?
>
>  Well, looking at the current primaries (x86/x86_64), I don't know that
>  they'd ever be demoted, but it wouldn't hurt to document some criteria
>  here too. 
As Dennis said, dropping x86 might be feasible at some point in the future.

josh