8:34 a.m.
Hi All,
Not sure if anyone else is aware, but it looks like FESCo voted to give us
until September 8th to get organized or i686 is being pulled from kernels
for F28. The good news is that they are letting us define what "organized"
means. The bad news is that the clocks ticking.
So, thoughts?
jeff
--
Jeff Backus
jeff.backus(a)gmail.com
http://github.com/jsbackus
9:31 a.m.
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Jeff Backus <jeff.backus(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,
Not sure if anyone else is aware, but it looks like FESCo voted to give us
until September 8th to get organized or i686 is being pulled from kernels
for F28. The good news is that they are letting us define what "organized"
means. The bad news is that the clocks ticking.
So, thoughts?
Do other SIGs have specific criteria about being "functional"?
As for the group's responsibilities, I do not understand what
could/should be done when e.g. an upstream project stops supporting
CPUs without specific instruction sets or x86 altogether.
Would it be feasible to schedule a meeting sometime next week, so that
we may have the input of those attending Flock? Should we also ask
someone from the kernel team and perhaps infrastructure to attend as
well or should we leave that for a next meeting?
10:25 a.m.
Where do we currently stand with people? That's my main concern.
And, what infrastructure are
we using? I haven't found any information about that.
12:44 p.m.
( CC'ing Matt Miller, Josh Boyer, and Kalev Lember so that we may
avail ourselves of their sagacious insight. )
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Alexander Ploumistos
<alex.ploumistos(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Jeff Backus
<jeff.backus(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Not sure if anyone else is aware, but it looks like FESCo voted to give us
> until September 8th to get organized or i686 is being pulled from kernels
> for F28. The good news is that they are letting us define what "organized"
> means. The bad news is that the clocks ticking.
>
> So, thoughts?
Do other SIGs have specific criteria about being "functional"?
I don't know what criteria other SIGs are having to meet, but I
expectation is that some degree of regular progress towards filling a
community need would be sufficient. My understanding is that there is
a specific need for:
* Testing on actual hardware, especially boot components, live images,
and kernels
* Triaging i686-related bugs
* Helping organize resources to address the above (i.e. helping people
who are looking for something to work on find an issue to work on)
* Recruiting people interested in Fedora's continued support for i686.
Additionally, I suspect that we would need some form of regular
meeting. IRC meetings are difficult for me to attend, so my preference
would be a regular discussion via e-mail, but we should choose a forum
that works for the most people.
As for the group's responsibilities, I do not understand what
could/should be done when e.g. an upstream project stops supporting
CPUs without specific instruction sets or x86 altogether.
Good question. I think the SIG could help with triage, but I don't
think we should sign up for taking on supplementing upstream when they
choose to drop support. I think we should approach this in a fashion
similar to SIGs for architectures such as s390 and ARM.
Would it be feasible to schedule a meeting sometime next week, so
that
we may have the input of those attending Flock? Should we also ask
someone from the kernel team and perhaps infrastructure to attend as
well or should we leave that for a next meeting?
I think it would be great to drum up support at Flock. Unfortunately,
I won't be attending this year. A meeting next week would be a good
idea. If we can't work it in due to conflicts with Flock, should at
least getting a meeting on the schedule would help us make a case for
an extension with FESCo. I think it would be good to include someone
from the kernel and infrastructure teams so that we can figure out the
rules of the road. I think it would also be good to include Josh
Boyer, who is undoubtedly ready to wash his hands of i686 altogether,
but I believe has quite a bit of insight into what specific needs the
SIG might fill and where to start.
jeff
--
Jeff Backus
jeff.backus(a)gmail.com
http://github.com/jsbackus
12:53 p.m.
( CC'ing Adam Williamson, since he seems to get stuck with a lot of
the backend stuff. Thread can be found here:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/x86@lists.fedoraproject.org...
)
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Daniel Hopson
<subsentient(a)universe2.us> wrote:
Where do we currently stand with people? That's my main concern.
And, what infrastructure are we using? I haven't found any information about
that.
_______________________________________________
X86 mailing list -- x86(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to x86-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Not sure where we stand with people - only two of us are listed on the
Arch page that Stephen set up. :) It would be great to have a
semi-official list. Is the Arch a good enough place for a list? Other
suggestions?
With regard to infrastructure, my understanding is that we will
continue to leverage resources that we have been using, including
build and test resources. The biggest hole is actual i686 hardware for
testing boot up and kernel-related items. I have a machine or two at
home I can use, and I suspect I can track down a few additional
machines that have been relegated to door stops.
Do we know of any specific ways in which current infrastructure is insufficient?
jeff
--
Jeff Backus
jeff.backus(a)gmail.com
http://github.com/jsbackus
6:37 p.m.
On 28 August 2017 at 11:25, Daniel Hopson <subsentient(a)universe2.us> wrote:
Where do we currently stand with people? That's my main concern.
And, what infrastructure are we using? I haven't found any information about
that.
_______________________________________________
X86 mailing list -- x86(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to x86-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
For builds and composing those builds the hardware is the currently
same as being used for x86_64. For testing, that is up to people
interested in the stone soup to bring something. For people you have
the people who are subscribed to this list who will offer to help or
for those people to get people interested.
I would suggest getting a meeting together for the 6th of September to
see if there are people interested in working on it.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
8:57 p.m.
New subject: Organizational Deadlineync-mailbox>
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 07:37:22PM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
I would suggest getting a meeting together for the 6th of September to
see if there are people interested in working on it.
Sounds like a plan. Would you be willing to host the meeting? I have an open-ended
commitment, but I will try to arrange to attend.
jeff
--
Jeff Backus
jeff.backus(a)gmail.com
http://github.com/jsbackus
http://gitlab.com/jsbackus
2421
days inactive
2426
days old
6 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Alexander Ploumistos -
Daniel Hopson -
Jeff Backus -
Stephen John Smoogen