Feedback on secondary architecute promotion requirements draft
dennis at ausil.us
Thu Apr 19 21:00:46 UTC 2012
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:04:57 +0100
Matthew Garrett <mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 09:49:34AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > Release engineering find the tooling and methods of composing to be
> > acceptable to be integrated into the fedora release process,
> Ok, so there's no expectation that release engineering have
> experience with the architecture?
No, We get asked to do stuff if we say no, we get asked why, if its a
tooling issue the tooling gets fixed if its that we dont want to do it
we get told thats not ok, as long as its supportable and there is
people to lean on when needed then it will happen. in the end it comes
down to what the community wants. when we hit issues we work with the
teams with the knowledge to get the issue resolved.
> > Infrastructure is able to provide adequate power, cooling and rack
> > space, additionally there is enough storage to accommodate the
> > additional architecture.
> Ditto here.
Much the same reasons. Infrastructure is full of very smart people. we
hit weird issues with the harware we have and make it work.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the devel