Thanks Brendan. My Fedora doesn't even use a GNOME desktop. I've happily used XFCE for years. And I make no secret that I care about servers more than desktops (you know, that part of the market where general purpose Linux has a huge footprint and stands a chance). I would hate to look back in five years and say "yea, Hyperscale ARM servers took over and Red Hat was totally there, but Fedora missed the boat entirely". Move with the times. Fedora wants to embrace the new and revolutionary? ARM is powering some very exciting disruption and Fedora should not be sitting on the sidelines naval gazing and pining for the declining desktop of yesteryear. -- Sent from my iPad On Jul 11, 2013, at 7:05, Brendan Conoboy <blc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 07/10/2013 09:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> Fedora is an operating system that supports a range of desktop >> environments, defaulting to the GNOME desktop environment. An OS that >> supports headless servers but not desktop environments might be based on >> Fedora, but it wouldn't be Fedora. As such, it wouldn't be suited to >> being a Fedora PA. > > It is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish whether to read these messages as high standards or hyperbole. Maybe your Fedora means desktop OS, but my Fedora has more facets than that. Fedora Primary is not some Platonic Form embodied by x86; that would be better described as Fedora Fantasy. > > The all or nothing element in the above simply serves to discourage further contribution and is harming Fedora's growth. The relentless "I don't want ARM to sully the good name of Fedora" is absurd: User for user, ARM is considerably more popular than Fedora. Is your definition of "Primary" a sacred idea that is responsible for Fedora's success? If held dear for too long it will be the well known idea responsible for its failure. > > Please consider the idea that there is a useful middle ground "Primary" and "Secondary". > > Primary Release/Primary Build system > | > Primary Build system/Secondary Release > | > Secondary Build system/Secondary Release > > > It might be multidimensional: > > Primary Desktop---Secondary Desktop > | | > Primary Server----Secondary Server > > > 15 months ago: > > There were concerns about reliability- we moved to enterprise hardware in PHX. > > There were concerns about build times, particularly that of the kernel: We bought the fastest hardware available, moved to a unified kernel architecture and sped up builds many-fold. > > There were concerns about kernel and toolchain maintainship: We hired and/or tasked kernel, glibc, gcc, and other engineers. > > There were concerns about releases being held up: We released F19 Beta and GA on the same day as x86. > > There were concerns about releng: Releng wrote the new promotion proposal. > > There were concerns about QA&Release criteria: We copied most of Primary's procedures. > > There were concerns about the installer: We're using anaconda and standard image creation tooling. > > There were concerns about desktop users: All supported platforms that have graphical hardware have a desktop. > > The list goes on and on. For any of the above a person can be small and pick out tiny details where they aren't satisfied, but if you're one of the people who is going to do that, please say the following: > > "I object to armv7hl moving to primary because of $DEFECT, but if $DEFECT is remedied by $MILESTONE, I will then support the move of armv7hl to primary". You define $DEFECT and $MILESTONE and we can have a productive discussion. > > At this time I think it is quite reasonable to ask for the build systems to be merged. Whether you call it Primary, Secondary, or some new middle-of-the-ground word, it's progress. > > -- > 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
