On Thu, 2016-01-28 at 17:43 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Adam Williamson > <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 1) just ditch the i386 columns entirely; openQA can continue testing > > it, and people can test manually if they want, but we don't bother > > tracking the results in the validation pages > > How about option 1. That leaves x86_64 and ARM only; and then where > appropriate the distinction between BIOS and UEFI. > > Next, duplicate that page, deleting ARM and UEFI, and changing x86_64 > and BIOS to i686. i.e., a 32-bit x86 only specific page. > > At least it's available. And it might give us some gauge of > interest/activity in testing 32-bit? Well, it's possible. Speaking selfishly (as the one who's likely going to wind up doing it), it involves a bit more work than the other options. It would be included in the 'Summary' pages, I don't know if that's a good or a bad thing. > I don't know how wide spread the 32-bit being dropped news has spread, > so it may turn out there will be a 32-bit SIG+spin that shows up one > more release. My understanding is releng doesn't have the time to just > axe all of i686 this cycle, so all of it is going to get built. Well yes, and FESCo explicitly didn't say "no-one's allowed to build 32-bit Intel images any more", just "they're not allowed to be release blocking". i.e. they explicitly drew a distinction between *not having the images at all* (which is a pretty big step) and not blocking the release on them (which is a smaller step). I think there's sort of an idea that WGs can choose to stop building 32-bit images entirely if they can get releng on board, and of course there's the possibility of building them but then burying them in Douglas Adams' filing cabinet (the one in the basement, where the lights are out, and so are the stairs, and there's a sign on the door saying Beware Of The Leopard) - i.e. not publicizing their existence at all. But that's a bit beyond our scope; the Cliff Notes for us are 'there will probably still be at least some i686 images, but they're no longer release blocking'. > I > think it's best to do the least amount of work now, that makes it > possible to support a hypothetical 32-bit SIG+spin to do the testing > they'd need to do, to have a quality release. Because it will be > released, and it'll be from Fedora. > > Is that reasonable? Sure, it's an option. I don't hate it. Again on an entirely selfish level I'd prefer some of the other options purely because they involve less work, but if enough people would actually perform the 32-bit tests (and if anyone is going to care about the results) then I'm willing to make the effort (of course, if someone else wants to do it, that is also great, I'm happy to lend a hand with any Wikitcms mysteries that transpire). > I even think it's reasonable if you just went with option 1; noting > the derived page as I've described is offered if/when i686 interested > persons show up to the testing party. Honestly if no one asks (and I'm > not asking for it), then that pretty much tells us at least the > testing state of i686. Yep, that's also a possibility - thanks for the idea. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
