Feedback on secondary architecute promotion requirements draft

[Brendan Conoboy]

On 04/18/2012 10:12 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 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.

Still not following you.  Everything in PA builds at once- 4 hours is 
the lowest common denominator that the kernel team will accept.  The 
builds all start at the same time and have to end within 4 hours, 
regardless of arch.  This is a silly thing to be quibbling over so I'll 
leave it there.

-- 
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / blc at redhat.com