On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 01:26:23PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 06:02:02AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > not sure that the ruby scl should have its own change. It needs to have > > FWIW, I'm happy to have a distinct change because I want to call this out in > the marketing. > Note -- I called out the need to talk to the docs and marketing team in my email because I think that we'll probably want to publicize all SCLs so the SCL approval process should probably also get something into the docs and marketing queue. A separate Fedora Change might be extraneous in this regard -- I'm thinking that fesco probably doesn't need to re-approve an SCL that FPC has already approved. OTOH, how does the Cloud SIG want to use the SCL? If they want to create things that are outside of the SCL that make use of it, that would seem to be a point of coordination and thus would be Fedora Change worthy... On yet another hand, though, having something not in an SCL depend on something that's in an scl was something that I was told we (FPC) shouldn't put into the first draft of the guidelines. Instead things that require SCLs must be placed inside of an SCL. I guess -- there needs to be a bit more information about what is desired here to know whether that would require a rethink of some of the foundational goals that were given to me. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpdNs5DV0p4i.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
