On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 12:38:05PM -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote: >On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 17:40 +0100, Dan Horák wrote: >> Josh Boyer píše v St 03. 12. 2008 v 11:05 -0500: >> > On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 04:53:17PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> > > On 03.12.2008 16:39, Brian Pepple wrote: >> > >> On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 10:20 -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote: >> > >>> /topic FESCo meeting -- Secondary Arches: will they ever fly? (aka, >> > >>> wtf happened to Fedora ia64, and what can/should we do to resuscitate >> > >>> it). >> > >> Added to the schedule. >> > > >> > > Wouldn't it be better to first discuss this on the list first? >> > >> > Here's a brief summary as I know it: >[snip] >> > Maybe it's time we start a SIG. We have Sparc, ia64, ARM, and one >> > or two potential others. The biggest hurdle is koji at the moment >> > and hopefully that will be solved soon. Then we can figure out where >> > to go from there. >> >> Work is being done on s390x too. > >Wasn't the idea that each arch should be its own SIG. And it'd be Sort of. >really nice to see semi-regular updates from the various arches that are >doing things on progress, either in the form of blog posts, mails to >fedora-devel, smoke signals, carrier pigeons :-) FESCo agreed on this today as well. I'll be contacting the various arch teams and asking them for monthly updates. >While I know they're not all dead, status could help show up common >blocking problems and get more people involved in helping to resolve >them Right. And the 'common problems' part is what I wanted to get with the overall "Secondary Arch SIG". I was envisioning a simple "have the Arch team leads meet once in a while to discuss on-goings". It doesn't have to be formal. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
