On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:00:28PM +0100, poma wrote: > 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? I can't parse this last sentence correctly. Are you asking what Josh does other than maintain the kernel? Or are you asking something else? -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com -- 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
