Feedback on secondary architecute promotion requirements draft

[Matthew Garrett]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 09:57:19PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 04/18/2012 07:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >The kernel team may have their view skewed by how likely they think it
> >is that a given architecture will be likely to force additional
> >rebuilds. So yes, the point of this document is that it's architecture
> >neutral, and so it's inappropriate for it to list figures that have been
> >quoted for a specific architecture.
> 
> This is very puzzling.  As part of your proposal we had the
> discussion with the kernel team and they came back with the answer
> for this proposal.  Now you don't want it.  If you don't want to
> kernel team's answer, why mention them at all?  If it's a general
> principle for a braod spectrum of packages that's entirely sensible
> and the document shoudl say so.  If we're specifically calling out
> the kernel and nothing else it's nonsense to ignore the answer to
> the question.

They're happy with it being 4 hours for ARM. The number might be 
different for some other architecture. Since this is supposed to be a 
generic document, it's not appropriate to put the 4 hour figure in it.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org