man, 29 10 2007 kl. 12:31 -0500, skrev Mike McGrath: > David Nielsen wrote: > > man, 29 10 2007 kl. 11:46 -0500, skrev Mike McGrath: > > > >> David Nielsen wrote: > >> > >>> man, 29 10 2007 kl. 09:10 -0500, skrev Mike McGrath: > >>> > >>> > >>>> David Nielsen wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> While I think this is some what like blackmail, you give us the options > >>>>> of being biggots or opening a slippery slope - I mean we have XFce > >>>>> users, enlightenment users, when they decide to get their own spin, do > >>>>> we make those official as well. In that case where does it end. > >>>>> > >>>>> GNOME only, I'm scared of the alternative as all official spins have to > >>>>> undergo QA testing and we are short on staff as it is. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> That's actually up to the QA team, and AFAIK the kde spin is blessed > >>>> already and distributed by the mirrors. This is a pure marketing > >>>> decision. Do we want it on the get fedora page or not. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> So if we market both and the QA flatly just don't have time and manpower > >>> to vet both, say the KDE spin has a horrible lot of problems does that > >>> not reflect badly on all of Fedora. In effect the choice is vetting > >>> everything (which we should do, sadly manpower, endless variantion and > >>> so on makes this practically impossible especially as the number of > >>> spins keep mounting) or blessing one spin then ensuring that at least > >>> rocks hard. Personally I feel pretty damn confident about the state of > >>> the GNOME spin, I've beaten it mercilessly for weeks without seeing > >>> major issues. > >>> > >>> > >> This is not marketing's concern / burden to worry about. If they ship > >> KDE to the mirrors, its a vetted official release and not a 'custom > >> respin'. > >> > > > > You saying so does not a stable release make, if I am misinformed on > > said point, could you start saying so more often as it would greatly > > ease my work. A release does not become vetted because we bless it, a > > release becomes vetted by testing. > > > > Seperate but related concerns, I'm saying it's unwise to bless a release > > without having assurance that it's properly vetted first. Saying we > > could just dismiss QA is not serving the KDE spin or the image of Fedora > > as a whole. > > > > What I'm saying is the QA and releng teams do the testing / vetting. > They decide what the official releases are to be and as of right now > they have decided that the KDE spin is also an official release. As a > marketing team it's our job to determine how best to get that > information known and to the users without confusing them because, and > lets be honest, if we put every possible Fedora available directly on > the get-fedora page with explanations of each, it would be incredibly > confusing to users. Here's the grim realistic goals of QA. Install, Boot, have working network and working yum on all machines, that's basically enough to make a release fixable post release. Even that is hard to get (remember F7 that didn't boot on certain Dell machines because of a last minute update), that does not mean Fedora is unstable it just means we have few people and a lot of work, not to mention not access to all possible combinations of hardware. That does not mean the spin is sufficently vetted to risk the reputation of Fedora. Anything beyond those 4 things is a bonus, a bonus we normally are able to more than deliver on in most cases. As for the confusion argument, I totally agree - only I'm of the opinion that 1 is less confusing that 2 options. Regardless I already did bow to the majority. Realistically it's political suicide to bless only one of the major desktop spins anyways. - David
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dette er en digitalt underskrevet brevdel
-- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
