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
rebuilds. So yes, the point of this document is that it's architecture
neutral, and so it's inappropriate for it to list figures that have been
quoted for a specific architecture.
This is very puzzling. As part of your proposal we had the
discussion with the kernel team and they came back with the answer
for this proposal. Now you don't want it. If you don't want to
kernel team's answer, why mention them at all? If it's a general
principle for a braod spectrum of packages that's entirely sensible
and the document shoudl say so. If we're specifically calling out
the kernel and nothing else it's nonsense to ignore the answer to
the question.
They're happy with it being 4 hours for ARM. The number might be
different for some other architecture. Since this is supposed to be a
generic document, it's not appropriate to put the 4 hour figure in it.
Still not following you. Everything in PA builds at once- 4 hours is
the lowest common denominator that the kernel team will accept. The
builds all start at the same time and have to end within 4 hours,
regardless of arch. This is a silly thing to be quibbling over so I'll
leave it there.
--
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / b...@redhat.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
