Fedora Board Recap 2008-FEB-19
mmcgrath at redhat.com
Mon Feb 25 19:14:24 UTC 2008
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, 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?
The last thing I heard was that secondary arches would be hosted
elsewhere. Infact nothing about secondary arches was to be hosted by
official Fedora Infrastructure people. I'm not sure when that changed.
I'm not saying we can't host it there, I'm just saying I don't know if we
More information about the fedora-advisory-board