----- Original Message ----- > From: "Josh Boyer" <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Discussions about development for the Fedora desktop" <desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2014 3:20:44 PM > Subject: Re: KDE integration/status for Workstation > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On 03/04/2014 09:20 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > >> This with my Personal Opinion hat on, not representing QA: > >> > >> I'm not sure all/most people who actually want to use Fedora KDE > >> are likely to be sold on doing it by downloading what they will see > >> as 'GNOME', installing that, and then installing KDE on top of it. > >> I think this will be fine for some folks, but there'll be a > >> significant constituency which just wants a KDE image. > >> > >> In fact we might be creating a bit of a problem, because I can see > >> both "want KDE as an alternative desktop on top of the Workstation > >> product" and "just want Fedora KDE" as two entirely legitimate and > >> viable constituencies, which sort of means we've just created a > >> bunch of extra work for ourselves. I'm not sure I see a clever > >> magical solution to that, though. Engage brain cells... > >> > > > > I'd suggest that for the Fedora Workstation, we declare that KDE is > > release-blocking *as an optional component atop the Workstation*. > > Please explain this further. Having an optional component be release > blocking is making my head hurt. > > josh At the risk of misrepresenting Stephen I think what he means, and what I agree with is that we declare that KDE is blocking as in 'it should work' before we do a given release, but it is optional to install for the end user. Christian -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
