On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 04:35:45AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > I would kinda quibble with that page. I would especially disagree with > > the text "To put it simply: These are the architectures for which > > Fedora will delay a release if they are not functional." That is *not* > > the actual definition of a 'primary arch', and I think whoever added it > > had an imperfect understanding. > > > > I like wiki pages, but when they're wrong, they're wrong. =) > > Maybe it's better to say that the definition (as you are using it) has > become more precise with time? The wiki history shows that phrasing as > being there since the 2008 import from MoinMoin. Or, thinking about it another way: the terms are overloaded. There is the technical aspect of koji builds. There is the aspect of release blocking. And, there's the aspect of what we promote as a project and make user facing. Adam, I think you're arguing that we really shouldn't use "primary" and "secondary" for anything but the first. This is hard, because they're powerful words that _seem_ useful for describing main effort vs. other. I think that unless we come up with some other agreed-upon and equally powerful language, the less-technical sense is going to keep creeping back into use. Or, we could focus on the build system and use "koji-primary" and "koji-secondary" for that concept, making clear that it's technical jargon. Maybe I'm overthinking, but this whole thread suggests that I'm not the only one. :) -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
