Proposed release criteria revisions

[James Laska]

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 at redhat.com> 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20110329/cceda923/attachment.bin