On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 15:23 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 13:48 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
From my limited perspective, such non-functional failure held up release when it violated a release criterion in effect because that non-functionality became coupled with image blocking, i.e. if kernel doesn't function, then image doesn't function/is DOA, DOA images are a release criteria violation, therefore block. Correct? Or is there some terminology nuance here that I'm still missing in the sequence?
No, even in this case there is no release blocking impact, because nothing release blocking is broken by the bug. The i686 images are not release blocking, end of story. Even if they are completely DOA, that does not block release.
Yes, I meant i686 in the past tense.
OK so I think I get it. i686 is officially primary, but in practice it's at best secondary.
NONONONO SEE THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT
It is primary. That's all. It is a primary arch. In all the actual meanings of that term. It is not 'in practice' secondary. It is primary. "In practice secondary" is a bad way to describe what you're trying to say and just confuses things. Please don't. :)
And that should be made official. TBD whether there's even enough people power and momentum to support it as secondary.
If people want to lobby for i686 to be made a secondary arch, in the true meaning of that term, I'm completely fine with that. I just want to make sure anyone who says it is actually clear on what it means, and that it is, in fact, what they want.