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

Re: [fab] Architecture Policy.



On 11/15/06, Dave Jones <davej 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


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