----- Original Message -----
From: "Brendan Conoboy" <blc(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 9:14:11 PM
Subject: Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements
On 03/20/2012 12:05 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> So if you're willing to live like that, I must ask again, what do
> think you'll be getting out of being a primary arch?
I'm willing to temporarily do better than secondary and worse than
primary on the road to becoming primary. This is a huge transition-
identifying the right path to make that transition is part of what
is about. The whole point of this thread is to establish
for promotion. Part of that discussion logically includes the steps
get there. Currently what I hear is "be as good as x86 and you're
there." That's not productive. There are legitimate issues with
to PA so we're having this discussion to identify them and ultimately
work through them.
If we really have to set requirements for proposals I see one thing totally missed from
the discussion up to now.
Is the SA ready? And giving a definition for being ready:
* does it release together with the PAs?
* has it ever released without a significant delay? define delay - 1 month?, 3 months?
* does it have the majority of the packages readgy? 70? 80? 90%?
* name yours
I really think that before promoting SA to PA it should have at least one release being
done together with the PAs with a sufficient feature set. Nothing prevents SA to prove
that it can deliver on time much like the PA do now.
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / blc(a)redhat.com
devel mailing list