On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 04:30:39PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > 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. ;) That's fair, but it goes the other way too — the way the people making the bits are using the term isn't always obvious to everyone else. It might be easier to get a few technical users to change their jargon than it will be to continually explain to incoming contributors that the words have this precise non-obvious meaning. -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
