Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



2014-02-04 Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> I won't speak for all of FESCo, but I'm leaning towards: "Spins can
> continue just as they are, while being aware that they continue to be
> secondary to our primary deliverables".
[snip]

Yes, in my eyes that's the reason why spins should not become a
separate product. They can/should be part of a product, such as
Workstation, and maybe only Security is worth a discussion apart.
How we will call the spins in fedora.ext is not important, but we
should have a clear idea soon about them.

Personally I wouldn't either keep any of them as release blocking
(except GNOME probably), only products should be able to block a
release.
Just my personal thought about this topic ;)

Cheers.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct





[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux