Dealing with PPC in Fedora 9(+)

[Jeremy Katz]

On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 21:43 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:29:38 -0500 Jeremy Katz <katzj at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 22:58 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 14:58 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > > This seems a reasonable compromise all together.  I can be happy with
> > > > this for Fedora 9.  Hopefully by the time 9 is let loose, we'll have
> > > > had at least one other full fledged secondary arch up and running and
> > > > proving that the method can work.
> > > 
> > > I suspect this is going to work a whole lot better if I have commit
> > > access to anaconda, kudzu, rhpl, booty, etc.
> > 
> > I'm just going to come right out and say that if Fedora as a project
> > starts dictating commit access to hosted "upstream" projects, that's a
> > quick way to kill the use of Fedora for hosting upstream projects.
> > Because that's not the way that commit access for projects should be
> > given.  Ever.
> 
> So not to nit-pick, but nobody was dictating commit access.  David
> simply said it would be smoother if he had it.

It read a lot like "Fedora the project should dictate commit access to
some of the hosted projects"

> And that aside, it is often quite common for upstream projects to have
> architecture "maintainers" for common code bases.  I don't see how the
> "Fedora hostedness" of this plays into it at all.  An upstream is an
> upstream no matter where it's hosted.

It's more the matter that Fedora as a project should *not* be in the
business of micro-managing the commit policies of those who choose to
host with us.  If, eg, glibc were hosted here, would you expect that
glibc commit access would be given just because the Fedora Board says
so?  I wouldn't.  Commit access to an upstream project is given based on
the merit of patches sent and received by said source base.  

Jeremy