On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 15:03 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 08:43:44PM +0200, drago01 wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Christian Schaller < > > cschalle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Well there seems to be more laptops/desktops still in use on > > > i686, > > > and it is not a lot of engineering overhead. Is there a request > > > from > > > release engineering to be allowed to drop i686 media? (I would > > > assume the > > > gains are relatively small since we would need to keep i686 > > > packages around for > > > some time regardless of having install media.) > > > > Its the kernel team that said that i686 bugs are low priority for > > them. > > That was definitely a big motivator, yes. But in addition the > statistics Matthew Miller showed at Flock clearly indicate the trend > is against i686 for some time now. In fact, there's a good argument > to be made that we haven't added any significant number of those > systems in some time (years), and it's a zombie population at this > point (q.v. <http://jwboyer.livejournal.com/49909.html>). > > The overall WG response I recall is to the effect of, "If an i686 > media/tree is not going to be well supported, we don't want it in the > edition we ship." > > I don't think it's extra rel-eng work to ship. It's not clear > whether > it costs QA any time, but if it doesn't I guess I'd wonder where the > actual testing is happening. :-) (This is not in any way a dig at > QA.) > So for me, if we can't say with certainty an i686 installation is an > equivalent experience to x86_64, with the same support, we shouldn't > ship it. > QA does indeed have to test i686, so it would be a significant reduction in effort for them at release validation time to drop i686.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
