Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

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

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

Hi all, Somehow despite me sending this last night - this was published. How can we prevent communication breakdowns like this in the future? This was sent prior to or during the magazine meeting, if I'm not mistaken. If there's *any* uncertainty around something like this, it should not be

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On 04/21/2016 05:04 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > I can't make tonight's Magazine meeting, but I'm +1 to get this out > ASAP. I've moved this article to Pending Review, but I already > reviewed it and it looks fine. I added a couple additional links for > SEO power. > > Anything Justin OK's for

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:18:05AM -0400, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > On 04/07/2016 06:59 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > > On 04/07/2016 06:47 PM, Ryan Lerch wrote: > >> Will it just be a featured image? Or are there other graphics required? > >> > > Just the featured image. Thanks! > > OK, looks like

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 04:46 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 04:35:45AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > > > > > > > I would kinda quibble with that page. I would especially disagree with > > > the text "To put it simply: These are the architectures for which > > > Fedora

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 04:35:45AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > I would kinda quibble with that page. I would especially disagree with > > the text "To put it simply: These are the architectures for which > > Fedora will delay a release if they are not functional." That is *not* > > the actual

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 04:33:27PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures > > > > When I read that, i686 sure doesn't seem like it's primary. But you're > > right, it's definitely not secondary. > > I would kinda quibble with that page. I would especially

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 17:22 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > 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

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 17:41 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > Concretely, in today's existing infrastructure and world, yes.  A > secondary arch does builds on a separate koji instance and failing > builds there don't impact the builds in primary. > > However, a while ago Dennis proposed a different

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 15:37 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 13:48 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > > > > > > Any i686 package that fails to build means it's failed for all primary >

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 15:23 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 13:48 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > > > > > > > > From my limited perspective, such non-functional failure held up >

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Adam Williamson > wrote: >> On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 13:48 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > >>> Any i686 package that fails to build means it's failed for all

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 13:48 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: >> Any i686 package that fails to build means it's failed for all primary >> archs, because i686 is a primary arch. And a failed build means it >> won't be

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Adam Williamson 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 >>

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 13:48 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > > > > > QA referred the question of whether upgrades from a release where i686 > > was 'release blocking' (<24) to releases where i686 is 'non

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:11:04PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > I really think it would help if we use these terms carefully and > precisely, and if we're going to re-define them in any way, make that > clear and explicit. Thanks Adam. I've been guilty of using them incorrectly (or at least

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > QA referred the question of whether upgrades from a release where i686 > was 'release blocking' (<24) to releases where i686 is 'non blocking' > (>23) should be considered 'release blocking' to FESCo. i.e. if

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 21:34 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > I prefer to move it to secondary because people could be  relying on it > > still, > > it gives us a way to move forward and not be blocked on 32 bit x86. If it > > does > > not work then it will not get shipped. Just dropping them on

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: >> >> I would like us to demote them to secondary. >> > >> > Why? We've already decided to drop. I'm not opposed, just curious why. >> > IIRC we were hitting a major problem with kernel compat as

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

>>> >> >> I would like us to demote them to secondary. >>> >> > >>> >> > Why? We've already decided to drop. I'm not opposed, just curious why. >>> >> > IIRC we were hitting a major problem with kernel compat as well? >>> >> >>> >> Pinging on this - I thought we'd reached a decision and wanted to

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > On Monday, April 18, 2016 9:34:35 PM CDT Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: >> > On Monday, April 18, 2016 2:59:18 PM CDT you wrote: >> >> On 04/15/2016 05:28 PM,

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On Monday, April 18, 2016 9:34:35 PM CDT Chris Murphy wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > > On Monday, April 18, 2016 2:59:18 PM CDT you wrote: > >> On 04/15/2016 05:28 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > >> > On 04/15/2016 10:38 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: >

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > On Monday, April 18, 2016 2:59:18 PM CDT you wrote: >> On 04/15/2016 05:28 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: >> > On 04/15/2016 10:38 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: >> >> I would like us to demote them to secondary. >> > >> > Why? We've

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On Monday, April 18, 2016 2:59:18 PM CDT you wrote: > On 04/15/2016 05:28 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > > On 04/15/2016 10:38 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > >> I would like us to demote them to secondary. > > > > Why? We've already decided to drop. I'm not opposed, just curious why. > > IIRC we were

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On 04/15/2016 05:28 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > On 04/15/2016 10:38 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: >> I would like us to demote them to secondary. > > Why? We've already decided to drop. I'm not opposed, just curious why. > IIRC we were hitting a major problem with kernel compat as well? Pinging on

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On Fri, 2016-04-15 at 17:28 -0400, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > On 04/15/2016 10:38 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > > > > I would like us to demote them to secondary. > Why? We've already decided to drop. I'm not opposed, just curious why. > IIRC we were hitting a major problem with kernel compat as

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On 04/15/2016 10:38 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > I would like us to demote them to secondary. Why? We've already decided to drop. I'm not opposed, just curious why. IIRC we were hitting a major problem with kernel compat as well? -- Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS j...@redhat.com |

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On 04/07/2016 06:59 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > On 04/07/2016 06:47 PM, Ryan Lerch wrote: >> Will it just be a featured image? Or are there other graphics required? >> > Just the featured image. Thanks! OK, looks like we have the featured image here: