Re: [Fedora-spins] Fedora 19 Spins

[Christoph Wickert]

Am Dienstag, den 09.04.2013, 17:28 -0400 schrieb Bill Nottingham:
>  Joerg Simon (jsimon(a)fedoraproject.org) said: 
>  > can you please give us a feedback regarding
>  > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/spins/2013-April/002886.html
>  
>  I am not the spin wrangler - I merely created the F19 spins page as a copy
>  of F18 because someone from QA asked me to so they had size targets, etc. 
>  
>  CC'ing Christoph, he can likely give you a better answer. 
I agree with Bill that http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/19/Spins
should be considered the authoritative list of spins. There is no reason
to only go for the desktop spins and exclude old spins from reoccurrence
if they are actively maintained.

In addition to that, we have some spins listed as ready for SIG:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Spins_Ready_For_SIG

I have no idea, why some of the spins are there:
      * Design Suite was around for ages and is now actively maintained
        again.
      * Same for the Games spin.
      * Fedora jam was approved be the SIG in the F18 cycle but didn't
        make it.
      * Java spin is new, afaik it was not yet approved. The owner seems
        unresponsive at least he has not responded to my questions in
        the wiki since December. Also, the board had some issues with
        the name.
      * Mate is new, too. I had to nag Dan repeatedly to finish his
        stuff, but he made it and we should officially bless it.

So as far as I can see, MATE is the only new spin we need to care about.
As we are likely to not have a meeting and we are running out of time, I
suggest we use the trac ticket I created for approval. All spins SIG
members, please cast your votes at 
https://fedorahosted.org/spin-kickstarts/ticket/46
I want at least 3 SIG members +1 the spin. If you have any questions,
the ticket is the place to ask them.

Also, I want people to commit to testing the spins. It's not enough to
rubberstamp a spin, you have to actually test it. I want all spins to be
tested and signed of by at least two people, the spins wrangler and one
other person. They will need to run all relevant test cases for the
desktop they use, plus all spin-specific test cases (if there are any)
and document their findings in the wiki. Basically the same process that
we apply to the desktops will be extended throughout all spins.

This being said: Even if your spin is approved or reoccurring and listed
at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/19/Spins it might not make it.
We (that is me and rel-eng) will not release something that was not
tested properly.

Kind regards,
Christoph

Fedora 19 Spins

[Shakthi Kannan]

Hi,

--- On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Christoph Wickert
<christoph.wickert(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
| I want all spins to be
| tested and signed of by at least two people, the spins wrangler and one
| other person.
\--

When, where and how should this sign-off process take place?

SK

-- 
Shakthi Kannan
http://www.shakthimaan.com

Fedora 19 Spins

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 15:08:13 +0200,
   Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> Also, I want people to commit to testing the spins. It's not enough to
> rubberstamp a spin, you have to actually test it. I want all spins to be
> tested and signed of by at least two people, the spins wrangler and one
> other person. They will need to run all relevant test cases for the
> desktop they use, plus all spin-specific test cases (if there are any)
> and document their findings in the wiki. Basically the same process that
> we apply to the desktops will be extended throughout all spins. 
Can you be more specific where you want this recorded?
For example 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_19_Alpha_RC2_Desktop 
doesn't have a place to record tests for live images other than the 
desktops. We also don't get RCs for spins other than at final, so would 
need to test nightly composes.

Fedora 19 Spins

[Peter Robinson]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Christoph Wickert
<christoph.wickert(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  Am Dienstag, den 09.04.2013, 17:28 -0400 schrieb Bill Nottingham:
> > Joerg Simon (jsimon(a)fedoraproject.org) said:
> > > can you please give us a feedback regarding
> > > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/spins/2013-April/002886.html
> >
> > I am not the spin wrangler - I merely created the F19 spins page as a copy
> > of F18 because someone from QA asked me to so they had size targets, etc.
> >
> > CC'ing Christoph, he can likely give you a better answer.
>
>  I agree with Bill that http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/19/Spins
>  should be considered the authoritative list of spins. There is no reason
>  to only go for the desktop spins and exclude old spins from reoccurrence
>  if they are actively maintained.
>
>  In addition to that, we have some spins listed as ready for SIG:
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Spins_Ready_For_SIG
>
>  I have no idea, why some of the spins are there:
>        * Design Suite was around for ages and is now actively maintained
>          again.
>        * Same for the Games spin.
>        * Fedora jam was approved be the SIG in the F18 cycle but didn't
>          make it.
>        * Java spin is new, afaik it was not yet approved. The owner seems
>          unresponsive at least he has not responded to my questions in
>          the wiki since December. Also, the board had some issues with
>          the name. 
The Java spin can't be called the Java spin due to trademark issues so
if it does happen it'll have to be called something else, I can
remember this going to the board last cycle.

Peter

Fedora 19 Spins

[Rex Dieter]

On 04/11/2013 09:38 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>  Can you be more specific where you want this recorded? 
Since it's only 2 people, documenting here onlist is one simple way.

-- rex

Fedora 19 Spins

[Christoph Wickert]

Am Donnerstag, den 11.04.2013, 20:01 +0530 schrieb Shakthi Kannan:
>  Hi,
>  
>  --- On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Christoph Wickert
>  <christoph.wickert(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  | I want all spins to be
>  | tested and signed of by at least two people, the spins wrangler and one
>  | other person.
>  \--
>  
>  When, where and how should this sign-off process take place? 
Maybe "sign-off" was the wrong word in this context. It needs to be
tested by two persons and their tests and findings should be documented
in the QA section of wiki. Basically I want the same we do for the
desktop spins for the other spins, too.

Kind regards,
Christoph

Fedora 19 Spins

[Gerard Ryan]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 04/11/2013 02:08 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>  * Java spin is new, afaik it was not yet approved. The owner seems 
>  unresponsive at least he has not responded to my questions in the
>  wiki since December. Also, the board had some issues with the
>  name. 
Hi,

I'm the one who proposed the Java spin. I sent a message about it here
on the list[0] the day after you reviewed the submission on the wiki.
My general feeling at the time was that it was way too late to be
adding spins and I had lost hope of it becoming an official spin ages
before that, since I had made the original proposal back in
July/August which was the original deadline; and it had changed
considerably in the meantime. I guess I was waiting to see when the
approval meeting was going to be to see if I would have had time to
introduce some of those other changes, but the meeting never happened
either.

I also (in what I would consider a reasonable time frame) addressed
the naming issue here on the list[1].

The reason I'm pointing these out, is that I've always had an odd
feeling that even though they're showing up on the list archives, they
didn't arrive in anyone's inbox and were never seen. Does that sound
at all likely? It's mostly because almost all of the times that the
spin has been mentioned on the list by people other than me, it's to
say something like it was never brought up on the list or that the
maintainer is being unresponsive; then when I do reply or bring it up
otherwise, there's no comment or response. Of course it's also
possible that I structure my messages in a way that it's too much
effort to respond, or something.

[0]
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/spins/2012-December/002639.html
[1]
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/spins/2012-December/002645.html

Gerard.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJRaIajAAoJEG7cfkpivEoVlu8P/RpnpJIMY+ccinHdYAq1r9sc
> 9cABHxTGcZnO5z+PSvSYMi4jxvtewBtAgId6wkNR5w43vFq69qddOxhFztQ74Dgd
> TvWBubjG/yMHPHvzgJNXMCLidWZEpTfuW2jEu8e4aFtQgvGEkl/Sym7pum+aQjtQ
> WELMVLGGf2EQjARD3AE8v8q9bREa8ponuLJigDTVQWWXGl9eTiMj33JkeMJoVL0s
> lLQg5W9rmtisWxXazdOSHNBjFlEfFqSfzeTqULp5Qk65/IBc3xmk24Jfz894Wu2v
> AFcvxa7AHk34b6geVJqR8okngz+Cr2N2pCRAwVOdqP4eU0XZJFQuKF6xok8kDd0M
> isn6pkFvcx+3ib55ceOmlEVuQ3l3/IGt3Rpgb+UaejqcOf0OIDiSMG1v9H5lniai
> 79t54eQjbRWCKSz2qMcs/8fPH18x2FwZlMXj1SqaTcjbo9UGic5OzT3sz+Gy9+hQ
> x27wjnkQGTcxscojWKc6Pplc9E9DEXi5kDsGXdWGLfyHPgMUi43rF30IJYgtiezb
> WTxe/7ZUbViJCkdxkOJpxjgIXW+wVkLCqi5aT0Y8htm42HMV9A+t4EDxiTUn7zUw
> 93lR+NpP9Wh/LMCdAiQ6K9j1N26XKh7v9z6mKumbrrZX9N/4Jimks19bYOkgQron
> 4g2TjEOzPF6j2qU7leNb
> =yEMW
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----