On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 12:35 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Stephen Gallagher < > sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > > I'm sure QA is more than capable of speaking for themselves :) I was speaking as someone who spends at least 8 hours every release milestone doing exactly that. And I am not alone. So yeah, it's a significant investment of time that we could reduce.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
