Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

On 12-07-17 18:34, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

I find this response not helpful at all, what I see happening here is:

Person a: We need help
Person b: Ok what can I do
Person a: We need help figure it out yourself
Person b: Huh, so there is nothing to do. Ok then I guess I will go and do
something else.

No, you're completely misconstruing the email thread I linked to.  We
said people interested in helping could do so, and gave a link to some
bugs that could be looked at.  But the crux of the original post
wasn't a cry for help.  It was a clarification of where the kernel
team would be spending their time.  So to phrase it in conversational
form it's more like:

Person a: We're going to be spending our time looking at x86_64 and
fixing issues there.  i686 isn't a priority for us.
Person b: <silence>

Right because what person "a" said is not a question, it is a statement,
which nicely summarizes my problem with this whole discussion, there
is no interaction / communication, just single sided statements.

I've been contributing to this thread to try and make *that* clear, but
clearly I've failed to do so.

Feel free to substitute me for person b because any desire I had
to make time to help with this just went out the window.

OK.  I'm not concerned about that at all.

Right, you want contributors to step up to help, but just having
demotivated a potential contributor does not concern you ???

I'm going on vacation for a week with no internet access so this will
be me last post in this thread, but I urge you and the kernel-team and
anyone else involved to take a look at your communication strategy
surrounding this issue.

From other posts in this thread I digest that what is really
necessary here, if we want to keep i686 alive, is an i686 SiG, a place
where the kernel (and anaconda team) can forward bug reports too
and never look back at those bugs.

So maybe what needs to happen is for someone to clearly
communicate that an i686 SiG needs to be formed before $date or
else i686 installation / kernel support will be dropped from
F28.

Regards,

Hans
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux