Board efforts: scope, concept, and permission?

Adam Miller maxamillion at
Tue Feb 2 20:32:19 UTC 2010

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59 at> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 02:22:37PM -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
>> I think the responsibility of these things should be placed upon the
>> SIG members who perform the functions from within these different
>> groups. Why not have a QA person from each SIG work together with the
>> larger QA efforts instead of potentially against them?
> If a spin wants to use a modified kernel package, what's the procedure
> for ensuring that it receives the same level of QA as the normal kernel?

That's not something I think would be in the scope of a SIG, nor do I
think something like that would make it past Spin review. This would
also take the current SIG/Spin outside the scope of being part of the
Fedora Project as it is no longer using Fedora packages, this (in my
opinion at least) would be a situation where a fork would be needed.


()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\   - against proprietary attachments

More information about the devel mailing list