On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 13:47 -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote: > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 11:21:01AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Peter Robinson wrote: > > > I don't see when the support lands in F-13 there couldn't be press > > > statements about it, just because it appears after the release doesn't > > > mean its not significant and isn't worth making a statement about. > > > > In fact this is a big failure of our feature process, but whenever I have > > brung this up in FESCo, the reaction of the other folks there was to > > threaten banning that kind of updates entirely. :-/ > > > > <SARCASM>Yeah, wonderful idea, let's allow everyone else to advertise WebM > > support months before us</SARCASM> just because the upstream release date > > happened to be at the worst possible point of our release cycle. :-/ > > > > Adding features in updates is needed. Our feature process needs to > > accomodate this. The current process is broken. > I'm not sure we need to push it all the way into F13, but a special WebM > repo would be nice so this can be easily tested by any user on F13 > systems in preparation for full 'support' in F14. Are there any plans to have Red Hat Legal look at the patent-freeness of WebM before we leap to include it? We don't take other people's word for it in most cases of potential patent problems, so I don't think it follows that we would just take Google's word for it in this case... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
