Fedora Board Recap 2008-FEB-19

Josh Boyer jwboyer at gmail.com
Mon Feb 25 16:58:54 UTC 2008

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:53:52 -0500
Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com> wrote:

> Mike McGrath (mmcgrath at redhat.com) said: 
> > > Dennis's request was to host the rawhide binary trees, which are ~15GB
> > > each, not for the release ISOs.  With this understanding, and after we
> > > remove FC1-5, FE1-5, and the obsolete test releases (that'll free up
> > > 300GB), we should be OK.
> > 
> > Except that as of right now we don't have anywhere to put FC1-5 and FE1-5,
> > For this release I had planned on (if we needed it) moving F[C,E]2 to
> > archives if needed.  Is it ok to completely remove these trees or do we
> > have to (or want to) keep them available?
> If we don't have the space to archive them, then maybe we have to punt on
> secondary arches for the moment.

Why?  Hosting is important, but not key to making it work is it?


More information about the fedora-advisory-board mailing list