Justin Forbes wrote:
> The i686 SIG was given multiple releases to organize. The original
> proposal which triggered the SIG to form was for F27, the proposal to
> finally kill it and declare the SIG inactive was F31.
But, the way I remember it, the SIG was declared inactive just because of
*one* unfixed kernel bug (the primary platforms have hundreds) and perceived
lack of mailing list activity (IIRC, the complaints were that there were too
few messages, but that limit is arbitrary, and that the bug was not
discussed on the mailing list, which is normal because that is what Bugzilla
is for).
> But this is different from the i686 kernel SIG in some critical ways.
But is this going to help, if the SIG will be held to unreasonable standards
just to have an excuse to kill it at the next opportunity?
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
