On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:26:41 +0100
Robert Mayr wrote:
...snip...
> For example spins, there was
> a long discussion on them, but we don't have any decision yet of how
> they should look like. I guess we will not provide them any more
> through spins.fpo, but that's a point we really need to know
2014-02-24 18:44 GMT+01:00 Stephen Gallagher :
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> tl;dr: FESCo needs to know what is going to need extra time to deliver
> Fedora.next in the Fedora 21 cycle.
[snip]
> * Websites Team: What sort of redesign work will we need to go through?
Webs
- Original Message -
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>
> >> We do not have a formal process in place for organizing such planning
> >> efforts, but as a provisional one, we'd like to take the following steps:
> >
> > We do have a formal process in place - Change
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> We do not have a formal process in place for organizing such planning
>> efforts, but as a provisional one, we'd like to take the following steps:
>
> We do have a formal process in place - Change process. I'm going to
> announce it right
- Original Message -
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> tl;dr: FESCo needs to know what is going to need extra time to deliver
> Fedora.next in the Fedora 21 cycle.
>
>
> Now that the Fedora.next product PRDs have been approved, the next
> phase is to plan our executio
On 24 February 2014 10:44, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>
> As a non-exhaustive list of example things we expect will need
> attention and would like input (particularly time-estimates) on:
>
> * Quality Assurance: Coverage increases and automation such as
>Task-o-Tron[1]
> * Release Engineer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
tl;dr: FESCo needs to know what is going to need extra time to deliver
Fedora.next in the Fedora 21 cycle.
Now that the Fedora.next product PRDs have been approved, the next
phase is to plan our execution. First of all, this will mean planning
out ho
