RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
Wed Mar 21 00:14:02 UTC 2012

On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 13:03 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:

> > Subject
> > to applicability, the same QE mechanisms being employed.
> 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.

In theory...yeah. In boring every day practice, we'd take a lot more
heat for 'not QAing a primary arch' than we would for 'not QAing a
secondary arch'.

I mean, right now, Fedora QA does just about zip for PPC or ARM. And
no-one not directly involved in PPC or ARM has ever complained to us
about that.

If ARM were a primary arch, I rather suspect they would.

But sure, in theory, we can do just about anything for a secondary arch
that we do for a primary arch, I don't think there's any technical
barrier to us doing update karma for ARM and test days for ARM and a
release validation process for ARM and all the rest of it. It's just a
question of motivation and personpower.
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora

More information about the devel mailing list