technical spec for the workstation up for review

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 14:24 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 13:42 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> 
> > I think it's okay for drafts / initial versions to look like this, and then
> > we can eventually collapse parts down to "#include base" or "#include foo
> > from base" / "include base except bar".
> 
> So, my view on this is that you can't specify a product 'with the core
> missing'. We have to write up how we want it all to work, from the
> kernel up. The other product WGs should do the same. And if the base WG
> managed to extract a common core out of that, more power to them.
> 
> But I don't think we can say: 
> 
> 'Our product is going to work like this ...
>  and it is going to have these characteristics ...
>  and it is going to be built on top of this unknown core that
>  we have very little influence over or insight into how it works.'

Sure, as I said, absolutely the products have to have considerable input
into the Base design. It was purely a procedural point as to how exactly
would be the best way to go about doing that. I wasn't suggesting that
Base should go out and design the base system in a vacuum, and then the
products just have to put up with what they come up with.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net