On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:53:52 -0500 > Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Mike McGrath (mmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > > > > Dennis's request was to host the rawhide binary trees, which are ~15GB > > > > each, not for the release ISOs. With this understanding, and after we > > > > remove FC1-5, FE1-5, and the obsolete test releases (that'll free up > > > > 300GB), we should be OK. > > > > > > Except that as of right now we don't have anywhere to put FC1-5 and FE1-5, > > > For this release I had planned on (if we needed it) moving F[C,E]2 to > > > archives if needed. Is it ok to completely remove these trees or do we > > > have to (or want to) keep them available? > > > > If we don't have the space to archive them, then maybe we have to punt on > > secondary arches for the moment. > > Why? Hosting is important, but not key to making it work is it? > The last thing I heard was that secondary arches would be hosted elsewhere. Infact nothing about secondary arches was to be hosted by official Fedora Infrastructure people. I'm not sure when that changed. I'm not saying we can't host it there, I'm just saying I don't know if we can. -Mike _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
