Schedule for Wednesday's FESCo Meeting (2013-11-06)

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 03:52:11PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 07:16:23AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:05:22PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 10:19:12PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > > #topic #1193 reboots for all updates -- are we ready for this?
> > > > .fesco 1193
> > > > https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1193
> > > 
> > > Didn't this terrible idea die already?
> > >
> > Do you have a link to the discussion/decision for this?
> > 
> > I've been looking around for the prior discussion and thus far I've found:
> > https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/869
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/F18_release_announcement?stF18#For_systems_administrators
> > 
> > (Base feature approved for F18.)
> 
> Previous discussion:
> 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-June/thread.html#168689
> 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-February/thread.html#178112
> 
Thanks.

Those seem to be discussion of the cons and pros, though, rather than
a decision.  So the discussion is relevant in that one of the important
compromise points was that previously it only applied to a subset of
updates but nothing says that the idea was "dead" as in rejected for
Fedora, correct?

In other words, I just want to make sure status quo before AppInstaller is
that Offline Updates are live on Fedora's Gnome Desktop but only for "OS
Components"?

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20131106/a127b911/attachment.sig>