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

Re: [fab] Architecture Policy.



On Mon, 2006-11-20 at 11:29 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "TC" == Tom 'spot' Callaway <tcallawa redhat com> writes:
> 
> TC> I'd agree with this. PPC should be a secondary arch for a variety
> TC> of reasons, none of which having to do with its code quality.
> 
> Oddly, I can't think of a really good reason why it shouldn't be a
> primary arch.  Is it really that much overhead for us?  And if it is
> made secondary, is there any path for it to make it back to primary
> status?  What would the criteria be?

I really see the only distinction as:

Primary: Red Hat drives the arch forward, ensures that it works, or
else, Fedora is in a bad bad place.
Secondary: Community drives the arch forward, ensures that it works, but
if it doesn't, the majority of the Fedora universe remains intact.

So, if PPC/SPARC/IA64 rises again, the userbase grows to huge numbers,
then we reconsider it as a primary arch, but otherwise, we let motivated
community push it.

Primary/Secondary not having any distinction as to quality of the
platform or the code within it. This is not a "Second class"
distinction.

~spot


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