On Jan 23, 2014 2:33 PM, "Kevin Fenzi" <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:03:02 +0100
> Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I'm still undecided if I overall like Fedora.next or fear it. But more
> > and more I tend to the latter position and wonder if it might be wise
> > to slow things down: Do one more Fedora release the old style in round
> > about June; that would give us more time to better discuss and work
> > out Fedora.next and get contributors involved better in the planing.
>
> This is not practical. Lots of people are thinking about a
> fedora.next, qa folks are coding away, lots of people who normally
> would be working on the next release are not. If we tell them to stop
> all that and go back to normal, we could, but then fedora.next will
> likely never ever happen.
[...]
> The current problem I have with Fedora.next is that it's so abstract.
How are QA folks "coding away" for Fedora.next, rather than traditional Fedora QA processes, if Fedora.next is "so abstract"?
I still don't understand what the Fedora.next "Products" accomplish that Spins don't/can't.
Eric
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
