[fab] Architecture Policy.

[Mike McGrath]

On 11/15/06, Dave Jones <davej at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 05:57:04AM -0600, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
>  > I'm particularly interested in the decision to stop counting PowerPC as
>  > a primary architecture. I've heard rumours that this decision was in
>  > part because PPC was responsible for most of the recent release slippage
>  > -- but that doesn't seem to be backed up by the slip announcements --
>  > the first one for FC6² lists only one PPC-specific issue in the five
>  > problems that caused the slip, and the second one³ doesn't seem to
>  > mention _anything_ that's specific to PPC.
>
> >From my perspective, one reason to relegate PPC to secondary is that
> when you're busy, *NO-ONE* looks at or works on PPC kernel bugs.
> Half the time I feel like I'm the only person looking at x86, but
> that's irrelevant -- I (and most other people who look at Fedora kernel
> bugs) have no PPC knowledge whatsoever. (And likely to stay that way).
>
> It's completely unacceptable to have an architecture be considered
> primary when we can't do a thing about any incoming bugs, especially
> when those bugs are of the form "my Mac doesn't boot".
> If they were "my sound doesn't work", it'd be a lesser issue, but they're
> nearly always the nasty "oh crap" species of bug.

Just food for thought regarding PPC.  I'm not an advocate for or
against PPC but I did want to point out that from our stats the PPC's
account for a very tiny percentage of our overall userbase
http://fedoraproject.org/awstats/stats/FC6-Nov-16.png (0.4%)  On a
side note, I have no idea if this method of stats collecting really
works so take it for what it is :D

               -Mike