RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements
blc at redhat.com
Tue Mar 20 21:33:57 UTC 2012
On 03/20/2012 01:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> As an example, the same koji server handling x86 builds handling ARM
> Only the koji hub would be the same, the arm builders would be different
> machines. This isn't all that different from having the primary hub
> trigger the arm hub to start a build on the arm builders.
So in principle, do you object to the same koji hub being used for ARM
if ARM is still SA?
> The PPC builders are there, or at least were at some point, why not
> propose moving some arm stuff there for the arm secondary arch effort?
> I don't see SA/PA mattering as much here. It's up to QE what they want
> to take on and what they point automated tooling at.
The sense I'm getting from your reply is that the PA/SA designation is
almost decorative, that a secondary can do anything a primary can,
except inhibit the progress of builds. So, if the Fedora ARM team fixes
all broken builds, brings in all the QE mechanisms, engages the Fedora
system at every level of the organization, solves the the build time
performance issue, and otherwise keep at it until we're functionally
indistinguishable from PA, *then* it's time to have the PA/SA
discussion. Is that right? Speaking for myself, I see most of these
things as a benefit of membership in PA rather than prerequisites. Or
more to the point, transitioning from SA to PA means doing all of these
things, so it's really just an order of operations that needs to be
> That's set by you, as a secondary arch. Why not pin it to the Fedora
> release schedule and see how well you do?
We're quite close, though clearly the QE is different.
> That said, within the websites group perhaps there is room for a
> featured secondary arch, with high visibility. Having something to point
> to first would help.
> Did you just ignore the emails starting these two threads by mjg and
> pjones? I believe they outlined some very good requirements for getting
> a secondary arch into primary. These longer threads have been debating
> some of the finer points of those proposals.
On the contrary, mjg and pjones' emails are just the sort of
constructive and thoughtful feedback I'm looking for. If the points
they've raised (which they also raised yesterday) speak to everybody's
concerns, then I'm happy to view them as the authoritative feedback of
Fedora-devel for our planning purposes. On the other hand, if they've
left anything out that should be considered in this plan, I'd like to
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / blc at redhat.com
More information about the devel