Dealing with PPC in Fedora 9(+)

[Dennis Gilmore]

On Tuesday 04 December 2007, Jeremy Katz 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.

we should not mandate access to upstream ever.  that is up to the upstream to 
decide.  regardless of where upstream is 

> >
> > Actually, we've spoken often of "arch teams" having commit access to
> > _all_ packages. Is that feasible?
>
> There's a very large difference between "committing to packages" and
> "committing to upstream".  We don't have a great way of doing the "arch
> maintainers can commit to any package", but since we're not talking
> about huge numbers of arch teams, we could probably go with the quick
> answer (just adding people to cvsadmin)

we have a  fedora-sparc  group to ensure that sparc team members have access 
to all of cvs   we should setup  fedora-ppc fedora-arm fedora-alpha 
fedora-ia64  and the rest when they come to the party.   

Dennis


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20071205/17b95479/attachment.sig>