On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 21:32 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > (Now, if we want each spin to fork off their own subproject, with their > own rel-eng, their own QA, and maybe even their own SCM branches? > That's more likely to scale.) This is the model I *really* want to avoid, because it defeats the whole purpose of having a project. What I'd prefer to see is the model where we have project-wide general groups, but SIGs contribute actual work. As I said, this worked well for QA for F14; QA group (i.e. me) set the framework, by providing test cases and a test matrix and notifying when builds were available. The spin SIGs contributed the actual testing. If we have each spin group have its own QA and its own releng, it's going to add a lot of unnecessary overhead with each group designing its own releng and QA processes when there's no need for these to be differentiated between groups; only the *work* is different. > And frankly, one of ideas behind spins was that it was a way to showcase > the exciting, innovative work that can be done in Fedora. If the only > exciting, innovative stuff we can come with as a community is just > 10 different implementations of a panel, terminal, window manager, and file > manager... that's pretty sad. It clearly isn't, given the range of spins we have at the moment, but the desktop spins do appear to be the most popular. And there's the special-case sorta desktop spins, Sugar and Meego; these are desktop spins, in a way, but characterizing them as just a panel, terminal, window manager and file manager kinda misses the point :) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
