Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 04:40 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Bill Nottingham wrote:
And I would argue that having the user interface swing wildly in design
implementation based on the current composition of an elected board
that is refreshed in part every six months is
On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 16:17 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 04:40 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
That's a very lame excuse for sticking with an awful desktop environment
as the default just because it is the status quo.
Not excellent...please avoid
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 04:40 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Bill Nottingham wrote:
And I would argue that having the user interface swing wildly in design
implementation based on the current composition of an elected board that
is refreshed in part every six months is not the sort of situation
Bill Nottingham wrote:
And I would argue that having the user interface swing wildly in design
implementation based on the current composition of an elected board that
is refreshed in part every six months is not the sort of situation that
Fedora would want to be in anyway.
That's a very
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 19:56 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
It is up to each WG to determine their product requirements. That
includes which architectures and target users they are trying to
produce a product for.
We've
On Fri, 2013-10-04 at 07:49 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
We just started to support ARM, I don't think we want to drop it.
I guess those three products are currently most important and
other products like Embedded should go into Spins category. At
least for now.
Yes, we're probably
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:29:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I really think whatever the New Way Of Doing Things turns out to be, it
needs to include a minimal network install image much like the current
netinst.iso, built for all primary arches, as a primary deliverable.
Whether that's
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2013-10-04 at 07:49 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
We just started to support ARM, I don't think we want to drop it.
I guess those three products are currently most important and
other products like
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 19:56 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
It is up to each WG to determine their product requirements. That
includes which architectures and target users they are trying to
produce a product for.
We've done a lot of work over the last few cycles to really bump ARM up
to
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 19:56 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
It is up to each WG to determine their product requirements. That
includes which architectures and target users they are trying to
produce a product for.
We've
Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) said:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Miloslav Trmač wrote:
No, the intent was very much to change what the resulting desktop
prioritizes. Quite a few FESCo members would be rather disappointed
if the new
Miloslav Trmač wrote:
No, the intent was very much to change what the resulting desktop
prioritizes. Quite a few FESCo members would be rather disappointed
if the new Workstation ended up just an unchanged GNOME[1].
[snip]
[1] As opposed to any of 1) non-GNOME, 2) GNOME changed by Fedora, 3)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/02/2013 05:05 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Hello, Two updates arising from today's FESCo meeting:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
The nomination period will be at least one month from this
Hello,
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
But the current spins will become even more second-class citizens than they
are right now, whereas 2 spins of dubious value to our real-world users
(Server and Cloud) get featured instead. (How many people will
On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 15:58 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
But the current spins will become even more second-class citizens than they
are right now, whereas 2 spins of dubious value to our real-world users
(Server
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 03:58:41PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
No, the intent was very much to change what the resulting desktop
prioritizes. Quite a few FESCo members would be rather disappointed
if the new Workstation ended up just an unchanged GNOME[1].
? The intent was very much for the
On 10/11/2013 01:58 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
The fact that we don't have a
successful server SIG/spin was seen as a problem that needs to be
fixed, not as a reason to continue avoiding server uses.
Interesting when and how was that conclusion reached?
Yeah sure the server sub-community got
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 03:53:39PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Did someone even bother to reach out to the community and ask them
how they would like to move forward?
( Not that I recall any thread doing just that )
It was discussed at Flock. It was discussed on this mailing list. The
On 10/11/2013 03:59 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 03:53:39PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Did someone even bother to reach out to the community and ask them
how they would like to move forward?
( Not that I recall any thread doing just that )
It was discussed at
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:19:00PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 10/11/2013 03:59 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
community representatives on FESCo and the board discussed it. All of
this happened in public. Which community do you feel was given no
opportunity to represent their opinions?
On 10/11/2013 04:27 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Was there any attempt to reach out to the relevant sub-community was
there a mail or discussion held on the server list even if only to
see who where active on it?
Given that the last mail to the server list was over 18 months ago, the
answer is
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:33:24PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 10/11/2013 04:27 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Was there any attempt to reach out to the relevant sub-community was
there a mail or discussion held on the server list even if only to
see who where active on it?
Given that
On 10/11/2013 04:41 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:33:24PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 10/11/2013 04:27 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Was there any attempt to reach out to the relevant sub-community was
there a mail or discussion held on the server list even if
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:47:34PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 10/11/2013 04:41 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Because there's no active server sub-community. The people interested in
server work are working within the general Fedora development community,
which means devel@ is the
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 05:41:28PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Because there's no active server sub-community. The people interested in
server work are working within the general Fedora development community,
which means devel@ is the appropriate list to reach them.
I also posted to
On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 16:47 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
That's quite the assumption and based on that I assume the next step
planned is to kill the server list and just mobiles the people
interested here right. shrug
I suggest assuming good faith instead.
- ajax
--
devel mailing
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:58:32AM -0400, Jens Petersen wrote:
* Fedora Workstation
Will this subsume Live-Desktop.iso and Live-KDE.iso?
What about other current desktop Spins?
Presumably some of these might have a secondary WG.
Right -- one of the key things we
On Oct 10, 2013 8:20 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:58:32AM -0400, Jens Petersen wrote:
* Fedora Workstation
Will this subsume Live-Desktop.iso and Live-KDE.iso?
What about other current desktop Spins?
Presumably some
On 10/03/2013 05:42 PM, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
On 11.09.2013 21:31, Matthew Miller wrote:
Introduction
Based on discussions at and around Flock, the Fedora Project Board has
approved a proposal for a big change in the way we put Fedora together.
Rather than presenting one
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/04/2013 04:31 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
On 10/03/2013 05:42 PM, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
On 11.09.2013 21:31, Matthew Miller wrote:
Introduction
Based on discussions at and around Flock, the Fedora Project
Board has
On 10/04/2013 02:49 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
What about Fedora Embedded? Do you plan to drop ARM support on
Fedora? I can't match small credit card size devices with either
Workstation, Server or Cloud group. Is this group list fixed or
could be extended and on what basis?
Mateusz
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Mihamina RKTMB miham...@rktmb.org wrote:
On 10/04/2013 02:49 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
What about Fedora Embedded? Do you plan to drop ARM support on
Fedora? I can't match small credit card size devices with either
Workstation, Server or Cloud group. Is this
On 10/04/2013 11:49 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
The main change being made here is with how we are presenting *The
Fedora Project* to the world. In the past, we've tried to be all
things to all people, but going forward we want to pick a few specific
areas that we will focus on (and market)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/04/2013 11:14 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 10/04/2013 11:49 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
The main change being made here is with how we are presenting
*The Fedora Project* to the world. In the past, we've tried to be
all things to all
On 10/04/2013 03:44 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Now, what was really intended by that statement that you quoted above
(and I acknowledge I'm putting words in people's mouths a bit) is that
Red Hat*may* flex its muscles a bit if the community were to do
something extremely unlikely that would
Hi,
On Thu, 2013-09-19 at 00:58 -0400, Jens Petersen wrote:
ps I wasn't at Flock alas so I may have missed some of the earlier
discussions that might already have covered some of this...
some of your questions are answered in Matthew Miller's Flock
presentation An Architecture for a More
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:58:32AM -0400, Jens Petersen wrote:
* Fedora Workstation
Will this subsume Live-Desktop.iso and Live-KDE.iso?
What about other current desktop Spins?
Presumably some of these might have a secondary WG.
Right -- one of the key things we need to do is work on the
On 11.09.2013 21:31, Matthew Miller wrote:
Introduction
Based on discussions at and around Flock, the Fedora Project Board has
approved a proposal for a big change in the way we put Fedora together.
Rather than presenting one Fedora with multiple slightly-different
install
Hello,
Two updates arising from today's FESCo meeting:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
The nomination period will be at least one month from this announcement.
The nomination period will end on Oct 14 0:00 UTC.
Membership in a Working Group is a
I feel this is a an exciting evolution for Fedora.
At the same time of course it will be a big change,
and there could be some risk of the increased complexity
fragmenting Fedora development somewhat, but it should
FESCo to scale to support the needs of these separate
products better.
I know this
Introduction
Based on discussions at and around Flock, the Fedora Project Board has
approved a proposal for a big change in the way we put Fedora together.
Rather than presenting one Fedora with multiple slightly-different
install options, future Fedora will be designed, developed,
Introduction
Based on discussions at and around Flock, the Fedora Project Board has
approved a proposal for a big change in the way we put Fedora together.
Rather than presenting one Fedora with multiple slightly-different
install options, future Fedora will be designed, developed,
42 matches
Mail list logo
