On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 07:54 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Adam Williamson > <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 22:07 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > > > I cannot argue with the criteria as you have set forth. However, I > > > never said we should block the release. I said it should work on the > > > architectures it does today. That is more than x86_64. We *know* we > > > have significant interest from multiple parties around Server on other > > > architectures. This comes from both the project sponsor and from > > > parties representing those architectures. They are even participating > > > members in the Server WG. So while you may not hold a Fedora release > > > for it, I do not think it is out of line to come into a Modular Server > > > release with the intention of it actually working across multiple CPU > > > architectures. > > > > Well, there is of course potentially a gap between "the intention of it > > actually working" and...actually working :) > > One we bridge well today, given that it works on things other than x86_64. Well, sure. I don't really know what the point of this is any more? I don't think anyone disagrees about anything. The only point I really wanted to raise is that we aren't at present actually committed to ensuring Server works on arches other than x86_64 at the level of the release process, and this might potentially mean that we wouldn't commit to ensuring modular Server is fully functional on other arches as part of the F27 release. I don't think there's any question that we want the whole modularity process to fundamentally work on all arches, though. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
