<p dir="ltr"><br>
On Sep 23, 2013 7:40 AM, "Jaroslav Reznik" <<a href="mailto:jreznik@redhat.com">jreznik@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi!<br>
> As the F20 Alpha is tomorrow, we need final text ready today to hand it over<br>
> to people who do announcement (this time it's nirik). I'm not sure I'll make<br>
> today's marketing meeting, so quick recap:<br>
><br>
> I've done a quick review of current version - changed final release to early<br>
> December, removed Vagrant change as it's not yet ready. The other Changes<br>
> should be ok - marked as MODIFIED in Bugzilla. IRC chat posted down on the<br>
> page is commented out now.<br>
><br>
> One question - how do we want to reference Changes? When it's clear we talk<br>
> about Changes (reference to ChangeSet), we should use it but we also talk a lot<br>
> about features in the text...<br>
><br>
> Otherwise I think it looks good, thanks a lot. Formatting for email is still<br>
> needed, Robyn usually does it.<br>
><br>
> Fedora_20_Alpha_release_notes already points to F20_Alpha_release_announcement.<br>
><br>
> Thanks<br>
> Jaroslav<br>
> --</p>
<p dir="ltr">If we are discussing Changes, we should call them Changes. The word "feature" is natural in this context, but carries with it the connotation of the now-defunct Features process. I have a similar tendency to use the word "runlevel" for example, and make a conscious effort to use "target" as the correct term.</p>
<p dir="ltr">The Changes process in and of itself is a notable organizational accomplishment. I see no value in obscuring our process for the sake of using the familiar and overloaded "feature." Let the readers find it strange if need be; it is a new thing, and this is the way of all new things.</p>
<p dir="ltr">--Pete</p>