I'd rather it wasn't included at all, personally. ----- Original Message ----- > Hi folks! So an F24 beta blocker was proposed today: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330941 > > because devassistant is not in F24 Workstation, and we have a criterion > requiring that all 'core applications' listed at > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Technical_Specification#Core_Applications > must be present. > > Now you might note that devassistant isn't in that now, so what's the > problem? It's not in it because I just took it out :) > > https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Workstation/Technical_Specification&diff=444474&oldid=372102 > > There was a meeting last year where its removal was agreed by the WG: > https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/workstation/workstation.2015-11-25-15.00.log.html > > but no-one updated the tech spec. There is an outstanding question, > however. It seemed from the meeting that people might want to keep > including the CLI, but in fact, the main 'devassistant' metapackage was > removed from comps: > > https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/comps.git/commit/?id=3ba95e811800f0dd548b4dfd53c7fcc4b8779667 > > so no part of DA is in current Workstation composes. I don't know if > you want to do anything about that. But I felt it was at least > sufficiently clear that DA was no longer considered a 'core > application' for Workstation and thus we don't need to block the Beta > on it not being present. > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA Community Monkey > IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net > http://www.happyassassin.net > -- > desktop mailing list > desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
