For your consideration: Secondary Architectures in Fedora

[David Woodhouse]

On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 18:38 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> David Woodhouse (dwmw2 at infradead.org) said: 
> On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 15:43 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > > Because, realistically, I don't want secondary arches to hold up
> > > development work in the cases where:
> > > - gcc breaks for X number of days
> > > - the architecture maintainers go AWOL
> > > - the hosting provider for said secondary arches goes AWOL 
> >
> > Let's be clear here -- when you say 'hold up development' above,
> > you're talking about the time it takes to file a bug, add an
> > ExcludeArch: and resubmit the build.
> 
> No. 

Well, that's all the holdup there'd be. Possibly even less, if we allow
the option to retrospectively file the bug and just push the packages of
the partially-failed build for the architectures on which it _did_
finish.

So either that's what you're talking about, or you're talking nonsense.
Which is it?

-- 
dwmw2