incubator-bigtop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruno Mahé <bm...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Official list of supported platforms
Date Sun, 28 Aug 2011 23:41:50 GMT
On 08/28/2011 03:14 PM, Peter Linnell wrote:
> On 08/28/2011 02:29 PM, Bruno Mahé wrote:
>> On 08/26/2011 12:35 PM, Andrew Bayer wrote:
>>> ...we should probably do this. I know James had thoughts on what Ubuntu
>>> releases we should support, and that Bruno's got thoughts on
>>> Mageia/OpenSUSE, but we should probably codify the list somewhere. Let's
>>> hear what platforms you all think we should support for 0.2.0, and then
>>> we'll vote on 'em to build out the list.
>>>
>>> A.
>>>
>> Top tier (the one we can't break):
>> * Latest CentOS (6.0)
>> * Latest Ubuntu LTS (10.04)
>> * Latest OpenSUSE (11.4)
>> * Latest Fedora (15)
>>
>>
>> 2nd tier (the ones without enough interest to be in the top tier, but
>> enough volunteers to maintain it):
>> * Latest Mageia (I volunteer to maintain it)
>>
>>
>> The top tier means we can't check in any patch that will break any of
>> these OSes. It also means we can't upgrade a component of BigTop if that
>> component cannot be built on any of these OSes.
>> Regarding the 2nd tier, it means not having a build is not a blocker for
>> a release and it is fine to have a commit breaking Mageia's support.
>> Although it does not mean we should break it on purpose either. The more
>> time I spend fixing Mageia, the less time I spend on other things.
>>
>> B.
> Hi,
>
> What about SLES 11 ?
>
> Peter

That was my thoughts on what we should support, not an authoritative one.
I didn't put SLES or RHEL because I am not sure of the license implications:
* Should the OSes in the top tier be available to anyone to fix?
* If only a few people have access to them, wouldn't releases depend on
these people? (in which case, they could be in the second tier)
* Is there any Apache restriction on that matter?


Mime
View raw message