On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 03:04:15PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > My concern would be that without it being an official target from the > start, we run the risk of brokenness being found late in the game. > Does it seem possible to add an "official" designation to ARM (and > i686 for that matter) if things prove to be working by whatever cutoff > date we have? That would seem to put more impetus on the people doing > the things you suggest without us declaring either of those > architectures by default. Yeah, I think that it would be an error to commit to it until there's been a demonstration that this is achievable - and the onus should be on the ARM people to demonstrate that. I don't want to end up with one of our first deliverables being a sub-par experience. If it can't run Shell reliably and with adequate performance then it buys us nothing to ship it. > I'm not as optimistic as some when it comes to viable accelerated > graphics hardware on ARM in the F21 timeframe. If testing of > Workstation ARM can't even begin until things are merged, and that > happens at the tail end of the development window, I don't really want > us to be stuck in the blocker/demotion game if it doesn't happen. > Opportunistic "promotion" seems a decent compromise. Not going to disagree. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
