End of 32-bit support?

[poma]

On 28.01.2015 17:17, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 08:37:59AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> Hatters, or from Red Hatters working in their spare time. (Of course,
>>> as RH often does, many of the high-output contributors end up applying
>>> for and getting RH jobs, skewing the picture.)
>> Well, I am observing quite a few people from major enterprises (RH
>> business partners?) who are working on secondary archtectures, but
>> I've very rarely (I don't recall any such incident) tripped over
>> community folks who are working on them.
> 
> Sometimes Red Hat business partners, but that doesn't mean that it's at
> Red Hat's direction. Overall, this is one of the few areas where we
> have money and paid effort flowing into the project that *isn't* coming
> from Red Hat, and I don't think that's a bad thing. These are
> "community folks" too, at least if we're doing it right.
> 
>>> Additionally, I'm not privy to Red Hat's architecture strategy, but as
>>> far as I know, 32 bit ARM — currently our only primary non-x86 arch! — is
>>> not of particular corporate interest.
>> It's obvious to me the aarch64 is RH's business interest.
> 
> But aarch64 and 32-bit arm are _completely_ different architectures.
> 
> 
>>> I also think it's a little unfair to frame this as a conflict, overall.
>>> It may be the case that Red Hat is less interested in paying people to
>>> work on 32-bit x86 (although I don't actually know that to be a fact).
>>> But this is just like any other contributor to the community — you
>>> can't make people do work they're not interested in.
>> Right, but that's not my point:
>> My points are:
>> - I once more feel pushed/tossed around by RH's interest and
>> RH-Fedora-people who obviously don't properly separate RH and
>> Community.
> 
> I can't argue with feelings, but I also am not really sure what
> separation you're looking for here and how it would affect this.
> 
>> - Support for i386 falls out as a by-product at almost Zero-costs of
>> the existing process.
> 
> I don't think that's true at all. It signficantly increases QA load,
> and we're struggling a lot with release engineering being able to cope
> with Fedora at its current scale. Cutting back here has an clear
> benefit (whether or not it's significant enough to outweigh the other
> wide isn't settled, of course). More significantly, the Fedora kernel
> team tells me that _they_ don't feel like they have the resources to
> really honestly support the 32-bit kernel — and the rest all falls out
> from that.
> 

You write as if you - Fedora/Red Hat lack people capable of maintaining the kernel as if it were something special - they are not kernel developers.
What Josh works except to maintains the kernel?