-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 20:10:12 -0700 Brendan Conoboy <blc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This is feedback vs the current version of the following web page: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Secondary_Architecture_Promotion_Requirements_%28Draft%29 <snip> > > There must be adequate representation for the architecture on the > > Fedora infrastructure and release engineering teams. > > This makes sense, but what is adequate? Perhaps 1 distinct person in > each group saying "I will be responsible for $ARCH?" What if only 1 > person wants to be the secondary representative in both groups? > - From a releng perspective the only grounds that I could object on are that the tooling to do composes is not acceptable. since a secondary arch should be using the same tooling as primary I cant make that objection. If the community wants something it happens. I wont speak for Kevin but the only grounds I know of for objection from Infrastructure are lack of rackspace/power/cooling or a lack of sufficient disk space for /mnt/koji otherwise if its what the community wants it happens. so really that should be reworded to something like Release engineering find the tooling and methods of composing to be acceptable to be integrated into the fedora release process, Infrastructure is able to provide adequate power, cooling and rack space, additionally there is enough storage to accommodate the additional architecture. Dennis -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk+QJgMACgkQkSxm47BaWfcyfwCcCrBPRGZtKy9Ye4tfQ5FcEv4v JIcAoKOKLgFly/+0IOph74fA7z0WHbJB =ZVKo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
