On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 12:00 PM Amy Marrich <amy at redhat.com> wrote: > > And that was the intent of the discussions. We would start the SiG with the x86-64 work and then possibly rename it down the road to be more of an umbrella for folks wanting to do similar things. The intent was never for Florian to do anything but the x86 work. > > If folks are good with the ISA SiG name we can just go with that from the start. This seems like a good compromise. Florian, I'll find whatever documentation that says we need to open a Board ticket for the SIG this week and get that moving with the ISA SIG name. josh > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 9:51 AM Patrick Riehecky via CentOS-devel <centos-devel at centos.org> wrote: >> >> 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 at centos.org >> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-devel mailing list > CentOS-devel at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel