On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 09:47:27AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > In February[2] we sent out an email highlighting that the kernel team > was not going to treat i686 bugs as a priority. Since that time, we > have held true to our word and have not focused on fixing i686 bugs at > all. It seems that the wider community is also treating i686 > similarly. The kernel bug that was made automatic blocker because of > existing criteria was present in Fedora since the 4.1-rc6 kernel, > which was released May 31. It has been in every boot.iso created > since that date. Not a single person reported this issue until last > week. That is a timespan of two months. > > The kernel team has autotesting for i686 kernels, but the environment > there does not utilize boot.iso so it did not detect this. The QA > team has automated testing for some of this, but nothing for the i686 > architecture at all. It is not a priority there either. I regularly use i686 and have not done a fresh install since years so would not detect this. Maybe fresh installs aren't such a deal for i686 users and the apparent stability is the reason why it gets less testing. The hardware is not changing so if fresh bugs appear there is a good chance that something else than just i686 is broken? Appreciate all your efforts and would miss i686. Not a top priority but maybe the memory footprint has some advantages on USB live images? Richard -- Name and OpenPGP keys available from pgp key servers -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
