On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:10:52 -0800 John Poelstra <poelstra@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > === Post-release updates of custom spins (2008-01-29) === > * Should the board have to approve them? > * We will hosts as many spins as we have space for Still wondering if there is some kind of hierarchy or priority for spins. > * Need to determine the hosting requirements and limits > * How long will spins stay around? I suggested EOL along with the base they are on. Any thoughts on that? > * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RahulSundaram/SpinsProcess > * ACTION: Jef to review Rahul's proposal and report back to board > * OWNER: Jef Spaleta > * '''FOLLOWUP on 2008-02-12''' > * Jef is waiting for feedback from Jeremy Katz on release > engineering's perspective > * Reference: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/Meetings/2008-feb-11 > * People are still not clear on exactly what is required to create > an official "Fedora Spin" > * Need a clear list of guidelines of what a spin owner is > responsible for and what they are required to test > * Hoping a test will come from Jeremy Katz as part of feedback > from release engineering I think this should have said "...test matrix.." ? > * We are only talking about spins that use GA packages, thus testing > for GA should have given us enough comfort that risk is minimized > * We only need to be concerned with new combination of packages > that a spin would present This isn't quite true. Spins are done against the repos that exists on the day they are generated. So if there are issues/bugs in the base+updates repos on that day, there will be bugs in the spin. For example, the recent Xfce spin we sort of lucked out that it pulled in a kernel with the security fixes for the vmsplice vulnerability. (Not quite sure what you meant by "GA", so we may be saying similar things.) josh _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
