<p dir="ltr">On Jan 23, 2014 2:33 PM, "Kevin Fenzi" <<a href="mailto:kevin@scrye.com">kevin@scrye.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:03:02 +0100<br>
> Thorsten Leemhuis <<a href="mailto:fedora@leemhuis.info">fedora@leemhuis.info</a>> wrote:<br>
> > I'm still undecided if I overall like Fedora.next or fear it. But more<br>
> > and more I tend to the latter position and wonder if it might be wise<br>
> > to slow things down: Do one more Fedora release the old style in round<br>
> > about June; that would give us more time to better discuss and work<br>
> > out Fedora.next and get contributors involved better in the planing.<br>
><br>
> This is not practical. Lots of people are thinking about a<br>
> fedora.next, qa folks are coding away, lots of people who normally<br>
> would be working on the next release are not. If we tell them to stop<br>
> all that and go back to normal, we could, but then fedora.next will<br>
> likely never ever happen.<br>
[...]<br>
> The current problem I have with Fedora.next is that it's so abstract.</p>
<p dir="ltr">How are QA folks "coding away" for Fedora.next, rather than traditional Fedora QA processes, if Fedora.next is "so abstract"?</p>
<p dir="ltr">I still don't understand what the Fedora.next "Products" accomplish that Spins don't/can't.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Eric<br>
</p>