I just deferred this Change as it is not needed anymore. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LetsEncrypt Regards, Jan On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:27 PM, James Hogarth <james.hogarth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 10 February 2016 at 14:57, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:41 AM, James Hogarth <james.hogarth@xxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> >> >> > Marketing are aware the package exists ... I worked with them on the >> > Fedora >> > Magazine article(s) after all ... even got a >5000 view badge for it! ;) >> >> Fantastic. >> > > I was rather happy with the result. > >> >> > Putting on my #centos community hat though ... >> > >> > Recently there was an uproar in mailing lists there and we told people >> > to >> > pay attention to Fedora ChangeSets for a loose indication on things to >> > be >> > aware of coming up. >> >> So you took a process that originally already had problems and added >> more problems by telling people to use it for things it wasn't meant >> for? :) >> >> Seriously, I understand the motivation there but Changes is not the >> place to pay attention to things from a CentOS perspective. Not every >> Change will wind up in RHEL, so it is already misleading. Further, >> given the lifecycles, a Change that lands in one Fedora release may be >> superseded by one in a later release. >> > > Err I don't know where you are getting this from ... I *did not* submit this > change ... > > I'm the point of contact and one of the maintainers for Let's Encrypt but > I'm not the one that put together the wiki page. > > As I pointed out I'm at best ambivalent about this being a valid change - > but we should probably have some mechanism to highlight new non-change > features. > > Indeed though many (most?) Fedora changes won't affect future RHEL Mattdm > was the one over on those lists suggesting people pay attention to Fedora > ChangeSets for at least a rough heads up on what might be coming at some > point. > > > >> >> > If new packages/technology aren't to be mentioned and only changes to >> > existing technology that may affect $developer are we do need a better >> > way >> > of exposing new things that are not changes. >> >> Yes. New packages land in Fedora all the time. We don't want to >> require them to file a Change simply because someone in some other >> project might be interested in it. It's too much process. >> >> If we need cross-project collaboration on things that will either be >> _in_ RHEL for sure, or things that CentOS wants/needs, that is a >> totally separate discussion. One that is certainly worth having. > > > > Realistically I think LE has had enough publicity for now and given the > strong feelings would dismiss this from the F24 ChangeSet. > > I would say it's taking it to the extreme to declare about all new packages > - most people won't care about the vast majority - but certain ones that > have a significant community interest around makes sense. > > Regardless of potentially upcoming RHEL releases, the ability to highlight > non-change features in a Fedora release, outside of $random FM article, > sounds like it would be a worthwhile discussion to have on the marketing@ > mailing list. > > > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > -- Jan Kuřík Platform & Fedora Program Manager Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
