On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 06:06:04PM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 07/11/2013 02:04 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > >On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:56 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" > ><johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>Each sub-community ( be it spins be it various arch ) should need to provide > >>the necessary QA/Releng resources from their sub-community ( if no such > >>thing the relevant party needs to build one ) > >That would be interesting and quite possibly very beneficial, however > >the transition from the current system when most people "don't need to > >care" would be a complex, longer-term cultural shift that shouldn't be > >(and doesn't really need to be) a blocker for the ARM feature. > > I dont argue that this should be a blocker for architectures quite > the opposite as far as I see it the only requirement for an > architecture to be come a "primary" ( thou arguably those are > outdated concepts as well ) is that all package currently build ( > with the execption if they simply cannot work on a spesific > architecture ) and be available for the community to use as lego > bricks to shape and present to the world as they image in for that > relevant hw. It is only a few weeks you argued that we should drop all packages that are not "properly maintained". Before that, you wanted to limit the number of packages a person can maintain, (by your words) to ensure that he (or she) has enough time to maintain them. Now you think it is a good idea to add a whole new architecture, which means additional maintenance load for _every_ package. Could you try to be at least a bit consistent? D. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
