F20 System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture

[David Tardon]

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 06:06:04PM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 07/11/2013 02:04 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:56 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> ><johannbg at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>Each sub-community ( be it spins be it various arch ) should need to provide
> >>the necessary QA/Releng resources from their sub-community ( if no such
> >>thing the relevant party needs to build one )
> >That would be interesting and quite possibly very beneficial, however
> >the transition from the current system when most people "don't need to
> >care" would be a complex, longer-term cultural shift that shouldn't be
> >(and doesn't really need to be) a blocker for the ARM feature.
> 
> I dont argue that this should be a blocker for architectures quite
> the opposite as far as I see it the only requirement for an
> architecture to be come a "primary" ( thou arguably those are
> outdated concepts as well ) is that all package currently build (
> with the execption if they simply cannot work on a spesific
> architecture ) and be available for the community to use as lego
> bricks to shape and present to the world as they image in for that
> relevant hw.

It is only a few weeks you argued that we should drop all packages that
are not "properly maintained". Before that, you wanted to limit the
number of packages a person can maintain, (by your words) to ensure that
he (or she) has enough time to maintain them. Now you think it is a good
idea to add a whole new architecture, which means additional maintenance
load for _every_ package. Could you try to be at least a bit consistent?

D.