Dealing with PPC in Fedora 9(+)

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:52:22 -0500
Jeremy Katz <katzj at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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"

Odd.  I haven't seen that anywhere.

> > 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.  

Sure, of course.  Perhaps the fact that it's being discussed on the FAB
list gave you the impression that the Board was somehow being invoked,
but I just attributed that as David continuing a thread.  Not asking
for the Board to dictate anything.

At any rate, I think we're saying mostly the same things and our
confusions are coming from different interpretations of David's
remarks.  Or maybe it's because it's late and I'm tired.  Regardless,
I'll be quiet.

josh