> > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Christian Schaller <
cscha...@redhat.com >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > The difference here is that the resources for GNOME (or anything else
Red Hat
> > needs for future versions of RHEL) are
> > provided by Red Hat. So if you want the spins to the logically the
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:11 AM, H. Guémar wrote:
> I'm not fond of keeping spins around when we're focusing on products.
> That gives the message that they are second-class citizens in Fedora.
>
In my view, this not supposed to be a discussion about numbering classes /
keeping score.
Rather, I
On 02/05/2014 03:34 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
It's not just that, actually. It has to do with the fact that the
majority of the scientific-focused applications are built atop the QT4
and other KDE libraries, making it much better suited to operating
atop the KDE desktop environment. Certainly
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 08:54:15 -0500,
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
Seems to be pretty outdated (*), we're past many things written there aka Live
CD size - for example for desktop and KDE spins. So the CD part could be
removed,
I know several spins doing changes in defaults and it's really up to
May take on the Spins
1) Spins have given us a great way to show people what is in Fedora
without installing
2) We have been producing Multi-Live media for several years to give out
at events.
3) The multi-lives make the display machines very easy to maintain (new
release wipe hd and reinstall
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:27:44AM +0100, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > That was a particularly gray area because it's simply a matter of
> > installing a package or not. Installing rsyslog but configuring it to
> > log differently than the standard is another level of change (although
> > of course a
Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said:
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 08:48:12AM -0500, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > > I'd also like to see some of the restrictions on spins loosened a little
> > > bit. I think the spin/remix distinction (Fedora-only software vs. combined
> > > with other things
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/04/2014 10:37 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 10:21 +0100, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> On 02/01/2014 11:07 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Right now, the vision essentially looks like:
Fedor
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 11:27 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 06:15 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> > honestly going back to only a install DVD with a sane user-UI and
> > dedicate all the time wasted for the spin/products/discrimination
> > discussions for documentations, screenshots a
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 11:11 +0100, H. Guémar wrote:
> I'm not fond of keeping spins around when we're focusing on products.
>
> That gives the message that they are second-class citizens in Fedora.
We already have about sixteen 'citizen classes' within the spin system,
as I pointed out in another
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 10:21 +0100, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 02/01/2014 11:07 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >> Right now, the vision essentially looks like:
> >>
> >> Fedora Products: This *is* Fedora. It comes in three flavors.
> >
> > I don't like the hardcoded "thr
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 10:21 +0100, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 02/01/2014 11:07 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >> Right now, the vision essentially looks like:
> >>
> >> Fedora Products: This *is* Fedora. It comes in three flavors.
> >
> > I don't like the hardcoded "thr
On 02/04/2014 06:15 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
honestly going back to only a install DVD with a sane user-UI and
dedicate all the time wasted for the spin/products/discrimination
discussions for documentations, screenshots and howtos would have more
benefit for Fedora there is nothing you can't s
On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 11:09:15 -0500
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>
> > - Original Message -
> >
> > It needs updates :). Any volunteer?
> >
>
> I have updated it just to remove the obsolete content for now.
> Ideally, it needs a
Hi
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
> It needs updates :). Any volunteer?
>
I have updated it just to remove the obsolete content for now. Ideally,
it needs a good rewrite
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https:/
Robert Mayr wrote:
> Why do you think only about KDE?
The other desktops should be considered separate Products, too. It's time to
stop treating them as second-class citizens that we won't even wait a few
days for with our releases.
> This topic shouldn't turn into a DE war IMHO. The product fo
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 08:48:12AM -0500, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > I'd also like to see some of the restrictions on spins loosened a little
> > bit. I think the spin/remix distinction (Fedora-only software vs. combined
> > with other things) is good, but, for example, spins, maybe it *would* be
>
- Original Message -
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 02:38:32PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > > I'd also like to see some of the restrictions on spins loosened a little
> > > bit. I think the spin/remix distinction (Fedora-only software vs.
> > > combined with other things) is good, but, for e
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 02:38:32PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > I'd also like to see some of the restrictions on spins loosened a little
> > bit. I think the spin/remix distinction (Fedora-only software vs.
> > combined with other things) is good, but, for example, spins, maybe it
> > *would* b
- Original Message -
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Matthew Miller < mat...@fedoraproject.org >
> wrote:
>
>
> I'd also like to see some of the restrictions on spins loosened a little
> bit. I think the spin/remix distinction (Fedora-only software vs. combined
> with other things) is g
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> I'd also like to see some of the restrictions on spins loosened a little
> bit. I think the spin/remix distinction (Fedora-only software vs. combined
> with other things) is good, but, for example, spins, maybe it *would* be
> okay to change
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 12:56:04PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Yes but community products wont be considered "primary" products
No. The initial plan calls for three primary *community* products. And we'll
see where it goes from there.
> which means if things continues in the same mann
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 01:34:09AM -0800, Dan Mashal wrote:
> So where do we currently stand with this?
So, here's what *I'm* thinking.
Spins clearly have enough popularity and importance that we either need to
keep them or have some alternative that fills the same space and makes
people at l
On 02/04/2014 12:38 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:57:51AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
For that matter, there could be a "Fedora GNOME" spin distinct from the
Fedora Workstation product, if there were people really keen to work on it,
perhap as a showcase of upst
It would seem that splitting the products could loose some community
support as one product has more support than the other, either way
the Fedora 20 product is definately at the cutting edge but after
installing it on several machines, it seems IMHO that cracks are
starting to appear now that I ha
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:57:51AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >For that matter, there could be a "Fedora GNOME" spin distinct from the
> >Fedora Workstation product, if there were people really keen to work on it,
> >perhap as a showcase of upstream technology without worrying about th
2014-02-04 Matthew Miller :
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 05:51:31AM -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
>> What I mean to say is that Red Hat has a business motive to support the
>> Fedora community, if supporting Fedora was a pure act of charity then I
>> think organizations like the Red Cross or Unicef
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> I won't speak for all of FESCo, but I'm leaning towards: "Spins can
> continue just as they are, while being aware that they continue to be
> secondary to our primary deliverables". (Yes, I'm aware of the
> KDE-as-release-blocker rule and
It's also a negative message to the 1.4 k active contributors in fedora.
Or do you assume that most of them are paid by RH which is unlikely.
Don't forget that fp.o has been founded with two stakeholders: RH and the
community
H.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fe
Am 04.02.2014 11:57, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
> On 02/04/2014 10:39 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:16:16PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> If we decide the alternative desktops are a valuable part of Fedora -
>>> which seems to be a popular opinion - how do we fit t
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 05:51:31AM -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
> What I mean to say is that Red Hat has a business motive to support the
> Fedora community, if supporting Fedora was a pure act of charity then I
> think organizations like the Red Cross or Unicef would have a much better
> chanc
On 02/04/2014 10:39 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:16:16PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
If we decide the alternative desktops are a valuable part of Fedora -
which seems to be a popular opinion - how do we fit them into a
Product-based conception of Fedora?
We can have a
2014-02-04 Stephen Gallagher :
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> I won't speak for all of FESCo, but I'm leaning towards: "Spins can
> continue just as they are, while being aware that they continue to be
> secondary to our primary deliverables".
[snip]
Yes, in my eyes that's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/04/2014 10:34 AM, Dan Mashal wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Stephen Gallagher
> wrote:
>> This is the domain of Fedora Remixes, not Fedora Spins.
>> Downstreams are permitted (naturally) to use Fedora packages for
>> whatever distribut
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:16:16PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> If we decide the alternative desktops are a valuable part of Fedora -
> which seems to be a popular opinion - how do we fit them into a
> Product-based conception of Fedora?
>
> We can have a KDE Product, and an Xfce Product, and a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/04/2014 11:11 AM, H. Guémar wrote:
> I'm not fond of keeping spins around when we're focusing on
> products. That gives the message that they are second-class
> citizens in Fedora.
>
To be fair, spins have always been second-class citizens (to
I'm not fond of keeping spins around when we're focusing on products.
That gives the message that they are second-class citizens in Fedora.
I'd rather define a process that allows current spins to become either
sub-products or full-featured products
when they meet a set of requirements (that is to
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:01:40AM +, Ian Malone wrote:
> Two thoughts:
> 1. Is there scope for a spin to be a particular sub-focus of a product?
> Desktop (all)
> . desktop gnome
> . desktop kde
> . desktop twm (maybe not)
> Server (all)
> . server web
> . server fileserver (or whatever might
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> This is the domain of Fedora Remixes, not Fedora Spins. Downstreams
> are permitted (naturally) to use Fedora packages for whatever
> distribution they want to create. The catch is that they have to
> follow the policies on this page: http
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/01/2014 11:07 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> Right now, the vision essentially looks like:
>>
>> Fedora Products: This *is* Fedora. It comes in three flavors.
>
> I don't like the hardcoded "three" there at all, because i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/03/2014 11:06 PM, Brendan Jones wrote:
> On 01/31/2014 12:28 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
>> On 30 January 2014 23:07, Josh Boyer
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Przemek Klosowski
>>> wrote:
On 01/29/2014 07:10 PM, Ian Malone wrot
On 01/31/2014 12:28 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
On 30 January 2014 23:07, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Przemek Klosowski
wrote:
On 01/29/2014 07:10 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
On 29 January 2014 23:58, Josh Boyer wrote:
I consider myself squarely in the middle of those two camps.
On Feb 2, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 02/02/2014 11:57 PM, Robert Mayr wrote:
>> 2014-02-02 Kevin Kofler :
>>> Adam Williamson wrote:
We can have a KDE Product, and an Xfce Product, and an LXDE Product,
but...at that point haven't we just re-invented spins? It doesn't
On 02/02/2014 11:57 PM, Robert Mayr wrote:
2014-02-02 Kevin Kofler :
Adam Williamson wrote:
We can have a KDE Product, and an Xfce Product, and an LXDE Product,
but...at that point haven't we just re-invented spins? It doesn't seem
to quite work with the Product conception.
Why not?
I see on
On Feb 2, 2014, at 2:54 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 02/02/2014 07:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 2, 2014, at 6:33 AM, Solomon Peachy wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 11:06:18PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I don't understand why we are doing that "Fedora.NEXT" thing in the
2014-02-02 Kevin Kofler :
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>> We can have a KDE Product, and an Xfce Product, and an LXDE Product,
>> but...at that point haven't we just re-invented spins? It doesn't seem
>> to quite work with the Product conception.
>
> Why not?
>
> I see only 2 acceptable outcomes, eithe
PS:
I wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> The KDE spin has always been a release-blocking deliverable, why should we
> get degraded to a second-class citizen?
Sorry, poor choice of words there: The KDE spin has been a release-blocking
deliverable for years. This hasn't ALWAYS been the case, in fa
Adam Williamson wrote:
> We can have a KDE Product, and an Xfce Product, and an LXDE Product,
> but...at that point haven't we just re-invented spins? It doesn't seem
> to quite work with the Product conception.
Why not?
I see only 2 acceptable outcomes, either KDE becomes a Product or the whole
Chris Murphy wrote:
> I think this is a good summary of what it's all about and what it isn't.
>
> https://www.happyassassin.net/2014/01/31/good-morning-bugfixing-and-thinking-about-fedora-next/
Yikes, one more step away from flexibility and towards a proprietary "one
size fits it all" experience
On 02/02/2014 07:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Feb 2, 2014, at 6:33 AM, Solomon Peachy wrote:
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 11:06:18PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I don't understand why we are doing that "Fedora.NEXT" thing in the
first place. It's a lot of change for the sake of change, without an
Solomon Peachy wrote:
> So far the only tangible result is that the release date for F21 is
> delayed (which is probably a good thing)
It's not. As you say yourself:
> A longer release cadence means we lose the 'First' goal (both in the
> First-to-market and Upstream-First sense), and the main ben
On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 11:26:06AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > For what my opinion is worth (as someone who's been around since the
> > RHL4.1 days) I have to agree.
>
> I think this is a good summary of what it's all about and what it isn't.
>
> https://www.happyassassin.net/2014/01/31/good
On Feb 2, 2014, at 6:33 AM, Solomon Peachy wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 11:06:18PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> I don't understand why we are doing that "Fedora.NEXT" thing in the
>> first place. It's a lot of change for the sake of change, without any
>> idea whether the output will be b
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 11:06:18PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I don't understand why we are doing that "Fedora.NEXT" thing in the
> first place. It's a lot of change for the sake of change, without any
> idea whether the output will be better than the status quo, or even
> whether there will b
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> 1) Are Spins useful as they currently exist?
Yes. Just see how many people do, indeed, use them.
> 2) Should Spins be eliminated entirely in favor of Fedora Remixes[1].
No! HELL NO! Reducing Fedora to those 3 uninteresting "Products" would be a
huge step backwards.
>
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Right now, the vision essentially looks like:
>
> Fedora Products: This *is* Fedora. It comes in three flavors.
I don't like the hardcoded "three" there at all, because if KDE is to ever
become a full-fledged Product (which IMHO it should have been from the
beginning!
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Until now, I am still unable to grasp the sense of "Fedora.NEXT".
> All in all, to me all I've read so far sounds like being a lot of effort
> with undefined, unclear or questionable outcome.
Indeed.
I don't understand why we are doing that "Fedora.NEXT" thing in the first
On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 16:22 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > The desktop spins are the ones that seem most important to keep. I
> > think there's a reasonable argument for dropping most or all of the
> > non-desktop spins, because they're essentially just vehicles for
> > delivering package groups, w
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 14:37:02 -0800
Adam Williamson wrote:
> So in my new constructive spirit ;) let me take a crack at some
> answers to this:
>
> I think the Spins process as it currently exists has a lot of
> problems. We've been saying this for years, long before we even
> thought about Fedor
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 15:30 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Apologies for the slightly alarmist $SUBJECT, but I want to make sure
> that this gets read by the appropriate groups.
>
> During today's FESCo meeting, there was the start of a discussion on
> how to approve new Products into the Fedor
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 22:50:59 +0100
Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Frank Murphy [31/01/2014 11:22] :
> >
> > Personally, I know currently, most DEs' can be installed with yum
> > groupinstall. But, that may not always be the case.
>
> I'm going to go in the opposite direction. The old anaconda instal
* Frank Murphy [31/01/2014 11:22] :
>
> Personally, I know currently, most DEs' can be installed with yum
> groupinstall. But, that may not always be the case.
I'm going to go in the opposite direction. The old anaconda installer made it
hard to see what groups you were installing and how you coul
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:53:17 -0800
Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Personally, I know currently, most DEs' can be installed with yum
> > groupinstall. But, that may not always be the case.
>
> I haven't seen any indication that anyone wants that to change as part
> of .next.
I do sincerely hope you
On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 11:22 +, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 06:03:48 -0500 (EST)
> Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> > What this does reveal is a bigger problem: that the audiences of at
> > least some of the spins are not aware of this relationship to the
> > larger Fedora ecosystem.
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Matthias Clasen
wrote:
I would be happy if Fedora moves towards being an OS,
Red Hat Enterprise Linux comes in both Server and Workstation variants,
among others. To continue to serve a useful role as upstream, I
believe Fedora should be able to do *both* of
On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 14:34 +0100, Lukáš Tinkl wrote:
> Fedora isn't a Gnome OS, perhaps that's what they're trying to convey;
> making it one will most probably create less confusion but I'm sure it
> will also make us less relevant (my personal opinion).
Not sure why that was necessary, but I
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 14:34:17 +0100
Lukáš Tinkl wrote:
> Fedora isn't a Gnome OS, perhaps that's what they're trying to
> convey; making it one will most probably create less confusion but
> I'm sure it will also make us less relevant (my personal opinion).
Currently it's not, it is a default DE,
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 08:20:18 -0500
Matthias Clasen wrote:
> I've seen mails on this list recently where people proudly stated that
> they would continue to advertise one particular spin at conferences
> etc
The current product is not Gnome, it is Fedora.
And if asked about Xfce, which I solely u
Dne 31.1.2014 14:20, Matthias Clasen napsal(a):
On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 06:03 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
What this does reveal is a bigger problem: that the audiences of at least some of the
spins are not aware of this relationship to the larger Fedora ecosystem. This would
indicate that t
On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 06:03 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> What this does reveal is a bigger problem: that the audiences of at least
> some of the spins are not aware of this relationship to the larger Fedora
> ecosystem. This would indicate that the "dropping" or de-promoting the spins
>
On 30 January 2014 23:07, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Przemek Klosowski
> wrote:
>> On 01/29/2014 07:10 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
>>
>> On 29 January 2014 23:58, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>
>> I consider myself squarely in the middle of those two camps. I think
>> they have value
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 06:03:48 -0500 (EST)
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> What this does reveal is a bigger problem: that the audiences of at
> least some of the spins are not aware of this relationship to the
> larger Fedora ecosystem. This would indicate that the "dropping" or
> de-promoting the spin
ated to Fedora"
>>>
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 1:25:10 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>>>
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:47:04 -0500
Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> On one hand, I am impressed by many spins as an excellent technology
> demonstration. On the other hand, what should existing users of a
> base Fedora do if they find an useful spin with a superior
> functionality? If its function is n
On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 07:47 -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Jaroslav Reznik"
> > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
> >
> > Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 1:25:10 PM
>
Le jeudi 30 janvier 2014 à 12:28 -0800, Dan Mashal a écrit :
> In fact, why don't we take this to a vote instead of arguing about it
> on this list? Why don't make this a Fedora elections issue?
for the same reasons as usual, ie practical ones, like voting mean
deciding who vote, ie, only board,
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Przemek Klosowski
wrote:
> On 01/29/2014 07:10 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
>
> On 29 January 2014 23:58, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> I consider myself squarely in the middle of those two camps. I think
> they have value to people. I think they fill a niche, however large
>
On 01/29/2014 07:10 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
On 29 January 2014 23:58, Josh Boyer wrote:
I consider myself squarely in the middle of those two camps. I think
they have value to people. I think they fill a niche, however large
or small it might be. I also think they can be done by the people
wi
Am 30.01.2014 21:23, schrieb Richard Hughes:
> On 30 January 2014 20:19, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> fact is that Redhat
>
> Pet peeve of mine: Please call Red Hat by it's proper name, or people
> will start calling you Reindlharald
besides that you know what i meant with my post and that language
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Blame me, I filed the original ticket. My concern was that we're (obviously)
> doing work in the Fedora.next space around:
>
> 1) the three products (workstation, server, cloud)
> 2) the base, which lives under them in some manner
> 3) env
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 6:22 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
wrote:
>
> On 01/30/2014 02:02 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:59:44 +0100
>> Johannes Lips wrote:
>>
>>> Well, but it's not only about money and a lot of contributors use
>>> their spare time to contribute, so I wouldn
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 14:53 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> Jiri Eischmann (eischm...@redhat.com) said:
>> > > That being said, as we go forward as Fedora.NEXT, we start to
>> > > see more
>> > > clearly defined div
On 30 January 2014 20:19, Reindl Harald wrote:
> fact is that Redhat
Pet peeve of mine: Please call Red Hat by it's proper name, or people
will start calling you Reindlharald.
Richard.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fed
Am 30.01.2014 15:22, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
> On 01/30/2014 02:02 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:59:44 +0100
>> Johannes Lips wrote:
>>
>>> Well, but it's not only about money and a lot of contributors use
>>> their spare time to contribute, so I wouldn't stress this mo
On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 14:53 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Jiri Eischmann (eischm...@redhat.com) said:
> > > That being said, as we go forward as Fedora.NEXT, we start to
> > > see more
> > > clearly defined divisions between Products, Spins and Remixes.
> > > Sinc
On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 11:17 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 06:45 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> > QA does no testing of spins at all? If that's the case then I
> > misunderstood. If QA does test, even if they don't block the release,
> > it takes time and effort.
>
> No t
Jiri Eischmann (eischm...@redhat.com) said:
> > That being said, as we go forward as Fedora.NEXT, we start to
> > see more
> > clearly defined divisions between Products, Spins and Remixes.
> > Since
> > these discussions needed to happen, we (FESCo) felt it
On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 06:45 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> QA does no testing of spins at all? If that's the case then I
> misunderstood. If QA does test, even if they don't block the release,
> it takes time and effort.
No testing of spins is required on the part of QA. People who contribute
to
On 30/01/14 03:45 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> The 'burden' they create on QA is precisely zero, as we explicitly do
> not block releases on spins other than desktop and KDE. I don't believe
> releng considers the spins much of a burden, either - it's more just
> that they don't like building and pu
On 01/30/2014 05:06 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
That being said, as we go forward as Fedora.NEXT, we start to see more
clearly defined divisions between Products, Spins and Remixes. Since
these discussions needed to happe
On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 06:42 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > jwb has tried to characterize this as an 'opportunity' for spins,
> but I
> > really don't think that washes. It's much more a case of us dumping
> a
> > whole lot of extra work onto any who wants to maintain a spin:
> >
> > * Get a domain
>
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:35:54 +0100
H. Guémar wrote:
> but they won't get coverage from
> marketing and ambassadors
Please don't include me in that,
I will always talk about
Fedora supplied Xfce to all who will listen.
and supply said media to those that ask, if I can.
___
Regards,
Frank
www.f
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 09:58:51AM -0600, inode0 wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > So let's not start by putting too much sacred value on the term
> > "Spin." Rather, let's think about what specific technical and
> > community-building problems are caused by usi
Rahul Sundaram píše v Čt 30. 01. 2014 v 11:06 -0500:
> Hi
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> That being said, as we go forward as Fedora.NEXT, we start to
> see more
> clearly defined divisions between Products, Spins and Remixes.
Hi
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> That being said, as we go forward as Fedora.NEXT, we start to see more
> clearly defined divisions between Products, Spins and Remixes. Since
> these discussions needed to happen, we (FESCo) felt it was best to try
> to move the c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/29/2014 03:30 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Apologies for the slightly alarmist $SUBJECT, but I want to make
> sure that this gets read by the appropriate groups.
>
> During today's FESCo meeting, there was the start of a discussion
> on how to
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> So let's not start by putting too much sacred value on the term
> "Spin." Rather, let's think about what specific technical and
> community-building problems are caused by using Remixes, how to solve
> them, and then consider that effort o
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 02:22:59PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
> On 01/30/2014 02:02 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> >On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:59:44 +0100
> >Johannes Lips wrote:
> >
> >>Well, but it's not only about money and a lot of contributors use
> >>their spare time to contribute, so I
I disagree about keeping spins around in the long term.
Current spins:
* hinders our communication (each spin is supposed to get proper coverage
from marketing, ambassadors etc.), some users think that actually
installing KDE requires reinstalling from the spin !
* prevents spins with a striving c
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 04:09:11PM +0100, Robert Mayr wrote:
> 2014-01-30 Johannes Lips :
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:15:56 +0100
> >> Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> >>
> >> > Personally I always felt that this symbiotic relationshi
1 - 100 of 167 matches
Mail list logo
