Re: Feedback on secondary architecute promotion requirements draft

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 04/03/2012 08:31 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
Look at it this way - if an arch is following the process to become primary,
but during that process actually becomes *less* viable, or for whatever
reason farther from being reasonable as a PA, the process needs to be
such that that's something people see and discuss. If it doesn't come up,
it's because it's completely fallen off the deep end.

So I'd much rather just say that an arch that's attempting to transition
from secondary to primary needs to regularly keep FESCo and f-d-l informed
as to the status than have something like formal sunsetting.  If they don't
keep us up to date, they have de facto stopped trying.

Okay, I'm relenting on automatic promotion. Basically, Peter is right that communication is essential, so some guidelines on what needs to be there would be most helpful. I would appreciate wider feedback on message ID 4F8C8416.4000602@xxxxxxxxxx from yesterday.

--
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / blc@xxxxxxxxxx
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux