Once upon a time, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said: > I don't believe that is fair or even true. The premise of the new > change is to allow alternative experimentation within Fedora proper > without impacting the mainline distribution. There is no assumption > that the results will magically replace Fedora in the near future. The detailed description says: "Changing the main Fedora baseline to new CPUs in place was rejected as the user base for older machines is still large. But we’d like to unblock the development and testing of this feature." What is the point in continuing development of a rejected feature, other than to hope that it is accepted in the future? I guess I just don't see the benefit to Fedora to stretch infrastucture resources even thinner to support somebody's pet project of a feature that has already been rejected. It feels like the goal is to prove (for some value of "prove") that the original change is right (for some value of "right") and then push it through despite the original objections. If somebody wants to do that, then IMHO they should handle all the resources, not put it on Fedora. There may be other interesting things this expanded infrastucture could be used for, but nobody is actually proposing that. What if doing it for the shadow architecture prevents it being done for anything else (because there aren't enough resources)? -- Chris Adams <linux@xxxxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
