On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 04:46 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > 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. :) I understand what you're saying, but the reason I'm so insistent on it is that this isn't just my usual linguistic nitpicking but an entirely practical issue. When you say 'i686 should be a secondary arch', and Dennis or Kevin reads it, what they understand by that is exactly what I've been saying, what you want to call 'koji-secondary'. If someone sends an 'i686 should be secondary' proposal to FESCo and it gets passed, what is going to happen is that releng is going to make it a secondary arch in the strict technical sense of the term I've been explaining. This is why I think it's rather important to use the term in the way that's understood by the people in charge of the things that make the bits. ;) I think it'd be *extremely* confusing to try and draw some distinction between 'primary' and 'koji primary' and expect everyone to always keep that straight. If we want i686 to not actually be a 'secondary arch' but continue to live in the state it's in right now, it'd be a much better idea to come up with a better way of describing its current state, and also consider what we want to do about what cmurf calls the 'loophole'. -- 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
