On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Right, which is another "problem". We _really_ want new Spins to be > part of the release process, which means this should start at F10 if it > wants to be an official spin. Just to be clear, there's no hard policy in place which would prevent spin creators to work against the current release and looking to get it into the kickstart pool and trademark approval.. is there? I can understand the need to get things built against the development tree as early in the pre-release process as possible if the goal is to have spins as part of the next release..with a hosting commitment for binaries that comes with that. The only significant problem here that I see is that they pushed ahead and used non-fedora binaries in what they published. Preview binaries are great, because it shows that these particular Spin developers are making their best effort to get this working and tested so when it comes time to approve things that conversation should go smoothly. This could just be a matter of..education...concerning how we expect people to go about doing this sort of pre-approval testing and reviewing The open question is, what is the best practices for spins in this pre-approval testing phase and how do we make sure people developing spins know about them. Obviously we need to make sure such spins make use of the generic logos. We don't want anyone out in the wild to get the idea that this is a baked concept. The generic logos are there specifically so we can do preview spins like this. The less obvious question is can we give people guidance as to what they should call these sorts of previews in the future. These sort of things are going to get created, with the intent of pushing tested versions through the approval process. -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
