On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 18:38 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > David Woodhouse (dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: > On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 15:43 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > > Because, realistically, I don't want secondary arches to hold up > > > development work in the cases where: > > > - gcc breaks for X number of days > > > - the architecture maintainers go AWOL > > > - the hosting provider for said secondary arches goes AWOL > > > > Let's be clear here -- when you say 'hold up development' above, > > you're talking about the time it takes to file a bug, add an > > ExcludeArch: and resubmit the build. > > No. Well, that's all the holdup there'd be. Possibly even less, if we allow the option to retrospectively file the bug and just push the packages of the partially-failed build for the architectures on which it _did_ finish. So either that's what you're talking about, or you're talking nonsense. Which is it? -- dwmw2 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
