On Fri, 2023-04-21 at 16:14 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> During the board meeting, the naming issue was re-raised; “x86 SIG”
> just
> isn't that great.  So I'd like to propose “x86-64 SIG” instead, with
> a
> hyphen.  We use “x86_64” in the RPM architecture name and configure
> triplets, but only because we must, as “-” is consindered a separator
> in
> these contexts.  The official vendor-neutral architecture name is
> x86-64.
>
> During the meeting, I was under the impression that the board was
> leaning towards a narrow scope, but that is not quite what the posted
> minutes reflect.  Per Fabian's announcement, we have at least a bit
> of
> wiggle room for non-x86 ISA experiments in CBS (ThunderX2 has LSE
> atomics support).  Personally, I'm not interested in such experiments
> at
> this time, though.  But we could call the SIG “ISA SIG” to keep open
> the
> possibility for non-x86 work, if that's what people want.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Florian

Perhaps setting up "working groups" within the SIG would help clarify
the current scope of work?

An ISA SIG with an x86-64 working group would clarify that no work is
currently focused on any other arches, but leave open a door if other
folks wanted to form some sort of s390x working group - but they'd be
on their own?

Pat
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel