On 27 January 2013 15:40, Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Second we need to get the owners of the spins take responsibility
> them and keep them up to date. Sending stuff off 6 releases ago that
> no-one checks out just says that spins are where that data goes off to
Yes and no. The Design Suite for example shouldn't have been published
as it was unmaintained. Luya took over maintainership after the release,
so we cannot blame him.
Oh I don't blame him. I just think that we spend too much of our time
in Fedora doing a lot of Heroic saves where it might be better to kill
it off. We have too many people seeing a package, spin, etc being
abandoned and then stepping in and taking it without really looking at
"Does this really need to be kept?" I think Spins especially can NOT
rely on one person per release but each needs a team of people in
charge of it. And if a SIG or group doesn't want to do that.. why do
we keep it?
On the other hand I feel we apply double standards. Have a look at
Desktop live media. The desktop team only changes the package selection
or some configuration here and there, but if something is really (about
to be) broken, it's usually fixed by someone from rel-eng. The desktop
team hardly does any testing by themselves, instead QA does a lot.
I feel this is kind of unfair. Given how little attention the spins get
and the limited resources we have, it's not surprisingsome of them are
not in good shape.
OH I am in perfect agreement here. I would put any and all Spins on
the proverbial chopping block if they aren't being backed by a team of
people who are actually fixing things versus leaving them to be fixed
spins mailing list
Stephen J Smoogen.
"Don't derail a useful feature for the 99% because you're not in it."
"Years ago my mother used to say to me,... Elwood, you must be oh
so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I
recommend pleasant. You may quote me." —James Stewart as Elwood P. Dowd