On 04/19/2012 05:36 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Ok, I'll modify that section. Thanks for the feedback!
Matthew,
Could you add comments addressing the need for documentation and website
content around a promoted arch? And any of the other comments I made in
my previous reply that you would like
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 04:22:38PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
On 04/19/2012 05:36 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Ok, I'll modify that section. Thanks for the feedback!
Matthew,
Could you add comments addressing the need for documentation and website
content around a promoted arch? And any of
On 04/20/2012 04:30 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 04:22:38PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
On 04/19/2012 05:36 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Ok, I'll modify that section. Thanks for the feedback!
Matthew,
Could you add comments addressing the need for documentation and website
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 01:50:20AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
* Not really sure how to word this, but something about the website,
wiki, and documentation? After all, it's all very x86-ish right now.
You mean making sure that an architecture is covered by the
documentation before promotion?
*
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 20:10:12 -0700
Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
This is feedback vs the current version of the following web page:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Secondary_Architecture_Promotion_Requirements_%28Draft%29
snip
There
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 09:49:34AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
Release engineering find the tooling and methods of composing to be
acceptable to be integrated into the fedora release process,
Ok, so there's no expectation that release engineering have experience
with the architecture?
On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 02:42 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Is simulated hardware acceptable? Remote-X or VNC access? Physical
hardware? What happens when a new generation of hardware comes out?
What about architectures where there is no video at all? What about
architectures where some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:04:57 +0100
Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 09:49:34AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
Release engineering find the tooling and methods of composing to be
acceptable to be integrated into
Ok, I'll modify that section. Thanks for the feedback!
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Hi Matthew,
On 04/18/2012 09:54 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Right now I don't think ARM's doing a great job of that [being part of
the Fedora community]. Your meetings happen on the phone and aren't
minuted.
I am sorry that you feel that way. I think it is important to add some
context to the
On 04/18/2012 06:54 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Not really. The proposed criteria provide strong guidance. If you meet
them all then you're probably fine. But the point isn't to be slaves to
these criteria. It's to be active particpants in the Fedora development
community.
It's a big if for any
On 04/18/2012 07:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Huh? The whole point of this item is that it's architecture
neutral- the kernel team for security reasons believes it important
that all kernel builds take less than 4 hours from start to finish.
Why would a new architecture change that number?
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 09:57:19PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 04/18/2012 07:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The kernel team may have their view skewed by how likely they think it
is that a given architecture will be likely to force additional
rebuilds. So yes, the point of this document is
On 04/18/2012 10:12 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 09:57:19PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 04/18/2012 07:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The kernel team may have their view skewed by how likely they think it
is that a given architecture will be likely to force additional
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:42:58AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
Hi Matthew,
On 04/18/2012 09:54 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Right now I don't think ARM's doing a great job of that [being part of
the Fedora community]. Your meetings happen on the phone and aren't
minuted.
I am sorry that
On 04/19/2012 01:22 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:42:58AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
Hi Matthew,
On 04/18/2012 09:54 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Right now I don't think ARM's doing a great job of that [being part of
the Fedora community]. Your meetings happen on the
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 09:46:16PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 04/18/2012 06:54 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Not really. The proposed criteria provide strong guidance. If you meet
them all then you're probably fine. But the point isn't to be slaves to
these criteria. It's to be active
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 01:34:00AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
On 04/19/2012 01:22 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
No, because it's not a requirement. In theory an SA could be perfectly
suited for PA promotion without any real involvement with the Fedora
community. It'd just be massively more
Hey guys,
Cutting this sub-thread off at the pass :)
I think it's obvious that we in the ARM project can do a better job at
engagement, cohesion, and we can learn and improve in many ways. I would
like to suggest that we steer this thread back toward the more abstract
question at hand: that of
On 04/16/2012 02:20 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I think a better way to think about this might be lie the packaging
guidelines - they provide a set of technical constraints, but they don't
tell you how to be part of the packaging community. I see SAs in the
same kind of way. Secondary
On 04/03/2012 08:31 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
Look at it this way - if an arch is following the process to become primary,
but during that process actually becomes *less* viable, or for whatever
reason farther from being reasonable as a PA, the process needs to be
such that that's something people
On 04/04/2012 03:26 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Can we quantify what the overall experience is that must be
consistent? I understand Anaconda installations is considered a
part of this... except when it's not for EC2 images. What I'm
looking for is These 10 things are partof the Fedora
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 06:18:34PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 04/04/2012 03:26 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Can we quantify what the overall experience is that must be
consistent? I understand Anaconda installations is considered a
part of this... except when it's not for EC2 images.
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 05:34:11PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 04/16/2012 02:20 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
If you manage that then I think most of the problems you're worried
about go away. It'll be obvious to everyone whether or not you're ready
to be a primary architecture at any given
On 04/18/2012 06:42 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
[snip]
What if some forms of the hardware are desktop capable, others are
not, but the community only has an interest in supporting headless
installations?
Then it's not fit to be a primary architecture.
Okay, please add examples like this
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 07:04:24PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 04/18/2012 06:42 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
[snip]
What if some forms of the hardware are desktop capable, others are
not, but the community only has an interest in supporting headless
installations?
Then it's not fit to
On 04/03/2012 08:21 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
[snip]
We need to
make the whole process one with continuous feedback, or it's never going to
work.
So I'd expect that we don't want to specify anything all that precisely -
I'd rather you come up with an implementation plan to satisfy each point,
and
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 01:41:58PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
Basically, I think the guidelines MJG has put together are good
principles; they just need some procedural blanks filled in so SA
teams know how to apply them and communicate with the greater Fedora
community.
I think a better
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 08:10:12PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
All supported platforms must have kernels built from the Fedora
kernel SRPM and enabled by default in the spec file. Each kernel must
be built in a
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 08:10:12PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
All supported platforms must have kernels built from the Fedora
kernel SRPM and
Peter Robinson wrote:
I agree, anything that is going to take that length of time is still
really a secondary arch.
Indeed, it sounds obvious to me that the only reasonable reaction to a
sunset clause is to automatically reject the promotion request, not to
automatically accept it!
Miloslav Trmač wrote:
AFAICT there is a clear FESCo consensus that the list can not be
exhaustive.
That's good news.
Essentially, asking for a promise to promote automatically if a
checklist is met is equivalent to asking for permission to promote
even if the software is known to be broken
Peter Robinson wrote:
It's already been stated that 3D isn't a blocker for PA, but that the
needs to be reasonable GUI support similar to that of the mainline
project.
reasonable GUI support already includes 3D in GNOME, and with the
developments in Qt 5, chances are the same will become true
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Peter Robinson wrote:
It's already been stated that 3D isn't a blocker for PA, but that the
needs to be reasonable GUI support similar to that of the mainline
project.
reasonable GUI support already includes 3D in
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 08:10:12PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
as such there are various expectations that the overall Fedora
experience will be consistent over all primary architectures.
Can we quantify what the overall experience is that must be
consistent? I understand Anaconda
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 08:10:12PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
as such there are various expectations that the overall Fedora
experience will be consistent over all primary architectures.
Can we quantify what the
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
There is no path to sure success. That's not how this works.
On the flip side I don't believe it's unachievable, I hope I'm not wrong.
I'd be surprised
On 04/03/2012 03:10 AM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
As long as the RE and QE requirements are similarly defined that's fine.
It would be good to get a clarification from fesco what they are
referring to when they speak of QE ( Depending on it's meaning it
might fall under the QA community )
On 04/03/2012 03:10 AM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
Let's make the list exhaustive; there needs to be a path to sure
success. This means establishing a complete procedure where when an
SA formally applies to become PA, acceptance means there is a
definitive set of steps needed to get there.
Brendan Conoboy wrote:
If those requirements are deemed to have been met, promotion is automatic.
I still don't agree that this approach makes any sense whatsoever. Promotion
must be an exceptional event decided on a case-by-case basis or we may end
up with an unmaintainable skyrocketing of
On Apr 2, 2012 11:10 PM, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
All builds must occur on Fedora-maintained build servers.
FYI, this will require an additional koji-hub for each architecture
trying to move to PA. Generally agree, though.
No. The additional hub is only needed while an arch is
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 5:10 AM, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
as such there are various expectations that the overall Fedora
experience will be consistent over all primary architectures.
Can we quantify what the overall experience is that must be consistent? I
understand Anaconda
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
This is feedback vs the current version of the following web page:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Secondary_Architecture_Promotion_Requirements_%28Draft%29
FESCo and affected groups should have the ability to review
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 2, 2012 11:10 PM, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
All builds must occur on Fedora-maintained build servers.
FYI, this will require an additional koji-hub for each architecture trying
to move to PA. Generally
2012/4/3 Miloslav Trmač m...@volny.cz:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 5:10 AM, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
as such there are various expectations that the overall Fedora
experience will be consistent over all primary architectures.
Can we quantify what the overall experience is that must
On 04/02/2012 11:10 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
This is feedback vs the current version of the following web page:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Secondary_Architecture_Promotion_Requirements_%28Draft%29
It would be nice if the bullet points were numbers so they could be
referenced
On 04/03/2012 04:03 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 04/03/2012 03:10 AM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
Let's make the list exhaustive; there needs to be a path to sure
success. This means establishing a complete procedure where when
an SA formally applies to become PA, acceptance means there
On 04/03/2012 10:16 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 2, 2012 11:10 PM, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
All builds must occur on Fedora-maintained build servers.
FYI, this will require an additional koji-hub for each
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2012 04:03 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 04/03/2012 03:10 AM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
Let's make the list exhaustive; there needs to be a path to sure
success. This means establishing a complete procedure
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2012 10:16 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 2, 2012 11:10 PM, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
All builds must occur on Fedora-maintained
On 04/03/2012 12:07 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2012 10:16 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 2, 2012 11:10 PM, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2012 04:58 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Apr 2, 2012 11:10 PM, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com
mailto:b...@redhat.com wrote:
All builds must occur on Fedora-maintained build servers.
FYI, this will require an additional koji-hub for each architecture
trying to move to PA. Generally
On 04/03/2012 09:07 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
From a koji perspective, there really isn't much benefit to step 2.
What needs to happen is the RPMs from the secondary hub need to be
copied to the primary in the correct NVR directories in the hub's
storage. That can happen in the background for
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2012 04:58 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Apr 2, 2012 11:10 PM, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com
mailto:b...@redhat.com wrote:
All builds must occur on Fedora-maintained build servers.
FYI, this will require an
On 04/03/2012 12:02 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Erm... you already have this. So will any SA making a transition. I
don't see a problem.
Outside PHX, yes. Inside, no.
--
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / b...@redhat.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:58:11 -0700
Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2012 09:07 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
From a koji perspective, there really isn't much benefit to step 2.
What needs to happen is the RPMs from the secondary hub need
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2012 09:07 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
From a koji perspective, there really isn't much benefit to step 2.
What needs to happen is the RPMs from the secondary hub need to be
copied to the primary in the correct NVR
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2012 12:02 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Erm... you already have this. So will any SA making a transition. I
don't see a problem.
Outside PHX, yes. Inside, no.
If an SA wants to go off and do a staging hub instead
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 12:04:07 -0700
Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2012 12:02 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Erm... you already have this. So will any SA making a transition.
I don't see a problem.
Outside PHX, yes. Inside, no.
I'll note again that the ppc and s390 secondary
On 04/03/2012 12:10 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I'll note again that the ppc and s390 secondary arch hubs are in fact
in phx2. ;)
You're already one step ahead of ARM ;-)
--
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / b...@redhat.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:58:11 -0700
Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2012 09:07 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
From a koji perspective, there really isn't much benefit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:45:09 -0700
Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2012 04:58 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Apr 2, 2012 11:10 PM, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com
mailto:b...@redhat.com wrote:
All builds must occur on
62 matches
Mail list logo
