-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Keating wrote: > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:38:57 +0200 > Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> You're saying the board decided to push Revisor into the >> "Kadischi"-corner?? >> >> I'd love to hear what arguments were considered. > > Not the same situation at all. However we have a set of tools that > Release Engineering uses to produce the Fedora distributions. These > tools are where all development necessary for the release happens, and > often it is quite rapid. We have these codebases to concern ourselves > with when addressing changes in the distribution or bugs in the compose > process. When it comes to making other spins for Fedora, these are the > codebases we wish to be used to produce those spins. How a config file > is generated doesn't really matter, so long as the file is valid. > What I'm reading is that all custom Fedora spins that are to be blessed need to be composed by Release Engineering (or at least their tools), because otherwise you (the ones that bless, build, test and help distributing) wouldn't ever be able to reproduce whatever the initiator of a custom spin had in mind when choosing another tool to initially compose the spin with. I'm also reading that you need development for the tools that are used to compose custom spins need to live within the Release Engineering team or close to it, to keep up with changes in the distribution or bugs in the compose process, but I'm not reading why we (Revisor developers) wouldn't be capable of doing exactly that. Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen - -kanarip -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFG/QjaKN6f2pNCvwgRAtW/AKCbluhCABf5p14RrX6sGJaeXF/8NACeIhOk ji0de01IPgTEWT0VHrya7w4= =J2t1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
