On 28.01.2015 17:17, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 08:37:59AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >>> Hatters, or from Red Hatters working in their spare time. (Of course, >>> as RH often does, many of the high-output contributors end up applying >>> for and getting RH jobs, skewing the picture.) >> Well, I am observing quite a few people from major enterprises (RH >> business partners?) who are working on secondary archtectures, but >> I've very rarely (I don't recall any such incident) tripped over >> community folks who are working on them. > > Sometimes Red Hat business partners, but that doesn't mean that it's at > Red Hat's direction. Overall, this is one of the few areas where we > have money and paid effort flowing into the project that *isn't* coming > from Red Hat, and I don't think that's a bad thing. These are > "community folks" too, at least if we're doing it right. > >>> Additionally, I'm not privy to Red Hat's architecture strategy, but as >>> far as I know, 32 bit ARM — currently our only primary non-x86 arch! — is >>> not of particular corporate interest. >> It's obvious to me the aarch64 is RH's business interest. > > But aarch64 and 32-bit arm are _completely_ different architectures. > > >>> I also think it's a little unfair to frame this as a conflict, overall. >>> It may be the case that Red Hat is less interested in paying people to >>> work on 32-bit x86 (although I don't actually know that to be a fact). >>> But this is just like any other contributor to the community — you >>> can't make people do work they're not interested in. >> Right, but that's not my point: >> My points are: >> - I once more feel pushed/tossed around by RH's interest and >> RH-Fedora-people who obviously don't properly separate RH and >> Community. > > I can't argue with feelings, but I also am not really sure what > separation you're looking for here and how it would affect this. > >> - Support for i386 falls out as a by-product at almost Zero-costs of >> the existing process. > > I don't think that's true at all. It signficantly increases QA load, > and we're struggling a lot with release engineering being able to cope > with Fedora at its current scale. Cutting back here has an clear > benefit (whether or not it's significant enough to outweigh the other > wide isn't settled, of course). More significantly, the Fedora kernel > team tells me that _they_ don't feel like they have the resources to > really honestly support the 32-bit kernel — and the rest all falls out > from that. > You write as if you - Fedora/Red Hat lack people capable of maintaining the kernel as if it were something special - they are not kernel developers. What Josh works except to maintains the kernel? -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
