On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 09:57:19PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > On 04/18/2012 07:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >The kernel team may have their view skewed by how likely they think it > >is that a given architecture will be likely to force additional > >rebuilds. So yes, the point of this document is that it's architecture > >neutral, and so it's inappropriate for it to list figures that have been > >quoted for a specific architecture. > > This is very puzzling. As part of your proposal we had the > discussion with the kernel team and they came back with the answer > for this proposal. Now you don't want it. If you don't want to > kernel team's answer, why mention them at all? If it's a general > principle for a braod spectrum of packages that's entirely sensible > and the document shoudl say so. If we're specifically calling out > the kernel and nothing else it's nonsense to ignore the answer to > the question. They're happy with it being 4 hours for ARM. The number might be different for some other architecture. Since this is supposed to be a generic document, it's not appropriate to put the 4 hour figure in it. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
