>> 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 agree with this sentiment, but like Dennis I wouldn't want to see it excluded entirely because it wasn't discussed at the beginning. >> 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. There are two possible candidates of HW class that would (could) make Workstation a nice option on ARM in the timeframe of F-21 but as both are out of my control I'm not going to get excited until I have them working in front of me let alone be naive to throw the hat in the ring. We've got around 6 months until the release of F-21 if it's something that evolves into that in a reasonable time in the interim and the moving planets align at the right time with enough time I believe it's worth reassessment then. Peter -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
