On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 04:30:39PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I understand what you're saying, but the reason I'm so insistent on it is that this isn't just my usual linguistic nitpicking but an entirely practical issue. When you say 'i686 should be a secondary arch', and Dennis or Kevin reads it, what they understand by that is exactly what I've been saying, what you want to call 'koji-secondary'. If someone sends an 'i686 should be secondary' proposal to FESCo and it gets passed, what is going to happen is that releng is going to make it a secondary arch in the strict technical sense of the term I've been explaining. This is why I think it's rather important to use the term in the way that's understood by the people in charge of the things that make the bits. ;)
That's fair, but it goes the other way too — the way the people making the bits are using the term isn't always obvious to everyone else. It might be easier to get a few technical users to change their jargon than it will be to continually explain to incoming contributors that the words have this precise non-obvious meaning.