RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements
akurtako at redhat.com
Tue Mar 20 20:01:04 UTC 2012
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brendan Conoboy" <blc at redhat.com>
> To: devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 9:14:11 PM
> Subject: Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements
> On 03/20/2012 12:05 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > So if you're willing to live like that, I must ask again, what do
> > you
> > think you'll be getting out of being a primary arch?
> I'm willing to temporarily do better than secondary and worse than
> primary on the road to becoming primary. This is a huge transition-
> identifying the right path to make that transition is part of what
> is about. The whole point of this thread is to establish
> for promotion. Part of that discussion logically includes the steps
> get there. Currently what I hear is "be as good as x86 and you're
> there." That's not productive. There are legitimate issues with
> to PA so we're having this discussion to identify them and ultimately
> work through them.
If we really have to set requirements for proposals I see one thing totally missed from the discussion up to now.
Is the SA ready? And giving a definition for being ready:
* does it release together with the PAs?
* has it ever released without a significant delay? define delay - 1 month?, 3 months?
* does it have the majority of the packages readgy? 70? 80? 90%?
* name yours
I really think that before promoting SA to PA it should have at least one release being done together with the PAs with a sufficient feature set. Nothing prevents SA to prove that it can deliver on time much like the PA do now.
> Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / blc at redhat.com
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
More information about the devel