On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Adam Williamson >> <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 05:27 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 5:00 AM, Kamil Paral <kparal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2015-August/001661.html >>>> > > >>>> > > Stephen Gallagher has proposed a Change for Server to drop i686 media >>>> > > for F24. Given our previous list discussion, this is something for >>>> > > which we should probably follow suit. Thoughts? >>>> > > >>>> > > -- >>>> > > Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ >>>> > >>>> > I wonder if this discussion (archive here [1]) had any conclusion? I just noticed that the Server SIG's proposal is in the F24 ChangeSet [2], but it is not the case for Workstation. If you plan to drop i686 medium, there are 12 more days until the proposal submission deadline [3]. >>>> >>>> FESCo voted that no i686 media will block the release from F24 and >>>> forward, so it doesn't make much sense to generate it. >>> >>> Well, whenever I've seen it discussed, there's been an understanding >>> that there's a difference there; we do ship a lot of non-release- >>> blocking media, after all. The idea was that declaring that i686 media >>> are not blocking is less drastic than out-and-out dropping them, and >>> gives WGs / SIGs the power to choose whether they want to keep shipping >>> the images or not. So I'd say you still have a choice to make here: do >>> you want to keep producing non-blocking 32-bit Workstation media in a >>> sort of 'here they are if you REALLY want them' way, or just stop >>> producing them entirely? >> >> If they are made, is QA going to commit to testing them as they have >> in the past even if none of the issues found are going to block the >> release? If so, then we have a discussion to have. If not, then I >> really don't see the point in shipping untested media. > > If it's non-blocking, QA may only incidentally tests them. Xfce spin > is non-blocking. And while there is a test case for it, that doesn't > mean QA makes sure that someone runs that test case. There's a pile of > media and images that Fedora is shipping these days and I'd be > surprised if QA is testing all of them. Oh nevermind. Yeah, if Workstation WG is going to ship an i686 Workstation, then QA needs to test it, is what you're suggesting. Is there any precedent for an official (blocking) product, to have an arch that is non-blocking? Fedora Server has ARM, but they block on it. So it seems like it's a grey area whether there can be such an unofficial non-blocking variant of Workstation and maybe isn't even a good idea and should be called something else. Presumably it'd go on a different page from Workstation? I think the WG should either own it completely, or walk away from it completely (it could become a spin), rather than have this less defined middle ground. -- Chris Murphy -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
