On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 15:23 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Adam Williamson > <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 13:48 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > > > > > > > > From my limited perspective, such non-functional failure held up > > > release when it violated a release criterion in effect because that > > > non-functionality became coupled with image blocking, i.e. if kernel > > > doesn't function, then image doesn't function/is DOA, DOA images are a > > > release criteria violation, therefore block. Correct? Or is there some > > > terminology nuance here that I'm still missing in the sequence? > > No, even in this case there is no release blocking impact, because > > nothing release blocking is broken by the bug. The i686 images are not > > release blocking, end of story. Even if they are completely DOA, that > > does not block release. > Yes, I meant i686 in the past tense. > > OK so I think I get it. i686 is officially primary, but in practice > it's at best secondary. NONONONO SEE THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT It is primary. That's all. It is a primary arch. In all the actual meanings of that term. It is not 'in practice' secondary. It is primary. "In practice secondary" is a bad way to describe what you're trying to say and just confuses things. Please don't. :) > And that should be made official. TBD whether > there's even enough people power and momentum to support it as > secondary. If people want to lobby for i686 to be made a secondary arch, in the true meaning of that term, I'm completely fine with that. I just want to make sure anyone who says it is actually clear on what it means, and that it is, in fact, what they want. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
