On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 10:10 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 09:13 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 08:41 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 00:40:07 -0700, > > > Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > I agree 'supported' isn't quite the right word, but I think we need some > > > > kind of adjective there. I'll try and think of something better. > > > > > > Something needs to be said there, as otherwise people will wonder why only > > > some of the desktop spins are listed. "Supported" is close to what we mean, > > > but the intended nuance might be confusing given what people may assume > > > about the what kind of support is implied. But nothing else specific comes > > > to mind as a better word. > > > > Provided? > > No, because we 'provide' many more desktops than just GNOME and KDE. The > point is that _only_ those two can currently block releases. I love the idea, but caution that we are defining, not supporting policy. I know we aren't defining this, since it's a generally understood concept. But I worry if no page already exists that defines "supported", this will be perceived as QA defining what a supported DE is. Possibly overly sensative. Should we pitch the proposal+draft to FESCO for comments? I've always liked the layout of the Architectures page [1]. Can we borrow the "Secondary" term from that page? Thanks, James [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures#Secondary_Architectures
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
