On Thursday, December 02, 2010 03:58:06 am Adam Williamson wrote: > 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. I agree - that is something I'd like to avoid too and I think it's the strength of having SIGs and higher level shared groups of qa, relengs etc. and SIGs helping these groups. As we do not have unlimited resources - Desktop and Plasma Desktop spins have probably enough people to live separate but I'm not sure it will work for other desktop spins. I think Desktop Validation worked this time and big thanks to Adam for the coordination - this is example how we should (in the project) work together and confirms "we have project-wide general groups, but SIGs contribute actual work" really works. > 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 :) It's another problem - we have two main groups of spins: cat #1. take some desktop, add/remove some packages, call it spin (I'm not saying it isn't hard work!!!) based on other spins (cat #2) cat #2. make different base set of packages, with mostly completely different user experience aiming on power users, netbook users - mostly other desktop environments like Gnome, Plasma, XFCE or some people here are working on Server spin. Then MeeGo - it's completely different user experience. I try (it's not official) not to call #2 category as spin but more like edition - imagine Shell Desktop by Fedora Project, Plasma Desktop by Fedora Project. So yes, it's going to be more subproject but again - try to share as much as infrastructure (qa, releng) as we can = win! R. PS: On the other hand - it's going to be much more bigger mess soon - classical desktop as we know it today, that servers everyone for every purpose is quickly dying. -- Jaroslav ÅeznÃk <jreznik@xxxxxxxxxx> Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno Office: +420 532 294 275 Mobile: +420 602 797 774 Red Hat, Inc. http://cz.redhat.com/ _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
