----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brendan Conoboy" <blc@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 9:14:11 PM > Subject: Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements > > On 03/20/2012 12:05 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: > > So if you're willing to live like that, I must ask again, what do > > you > > think you'll be getting out of being a primary arch? > > I'm willing to temporarily do better than secondary and worse than > primary on the road to becoming primary. This is a huge transition- > identifying the right path to make that transition is part of what > this > is about. The whole point of this thread is to establish > requirements > for promotion. Part of that discussion logically includes the steps > to > get there. Currently what I hear is "be as good as x86 and you're > there." That's not productive. There are legitimate issues with > moving > to PA so we're having this discussion to identify them and ultimately > work through them. If we really have to set requirements for proposals I see one thing totally missed from the discussion up to now. Is the SA ready? And giving a definition for being ready: * does it release together with the PAs? * has it ever released without a significant delay? define delay - 1 month?, 3 months? * does it have the majority of the packages readgy? 70? 80? 90%? * name yours I really think that before promoting SA to PA it should have at least one release being done together with the PAs with a sufficient feature set. Nothing prevents SA to prove that it can deliver on time much like the PA do now. Alex > > -- > Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / blc@xxxxxxxxxx > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
