Fedora Board Recap 2008-FEB-19

[Doug Chapman]

On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 10:58 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> 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?
> 
> josh

Please don't take the following as a gripe but I want to reply in the
POV of someone on the secondary arches side (ia64).

I understand we don't want to blow away the old stuff without archiving
first but I fear I am seeing one more major delay in a LONG list of
delays in getting secondary arches going.

The rawhide builds of ia64 stopped just before the F7 release when
builds were moved outside of Red Hat.  This was before I was closely
involved in Fedora other than doing testing on nightly builds just to
make sure things remained stable upstream (my primary focus is RHEL).  I
was never aware that the builds were going away until I just noticed
they were not there.  I was told at that time it would be back in a
matter of weeks (this was nearly a year ago).

We are quickly running out of time to get things stable in time for
RHEL6 which is my major concern and I imagine is a concern of the Red
Hat members of the Fedora Board.

My current focus is nearly 100% devoted to fedora-ia64.  We have made
excellent progress in getting back to where we were when builds stopped
but it is difficult to collaborate without having a good way to
distribute builds.

I do understand the comments made by Bill and Josh in the previous mails
are not suggesting we shouldn't do secondary arches and I don't think
they are trying blow us off.  However, things like this often end up
getting pushed off for long periods of time (and we have had enough of
those already).

So, I guess all I am saying is, can we look real close and see if there
is either enough space to host secondary arches now or some place to
archive the old bits?  I just want to make sure this doesn't get put off
too long.

Very much appreciated,

- Doug