Summary of accepted Fedora 20 Changes - week 30

[Josh Boyer]

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 05:09:54PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> On 25 July 2013 16:59, Billy Crook <billycrook at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Bastien Nocera <bnocera at redhat.com> wrote:
>> >> Given the amount of time that he spent on the mailing-list fighting for those features, then it looks like a waste of time, that work has been done.
>> >
>> > Unfeatures technically.  He wanted to remove features from the Default
>> > spin.   Subtracting functionality is not a feature.  He wanted an
>> > unfeature.
>> >
>>
>> No he wanted out of the default install. We have a badly defined
>> naming scheme which is causing confusion:
>>
>> default install -> what you get when you put the DVD in and do a click
>> through install.
>> default spin -> The GNOME desktop livecd.
>>
>> Spins are managed by their respective "teams":
>> default has been GNOME and managed by GNOME sig
>> kde is managed by KDE sig
>> xfce is managed by XFCE sig
>> etc etc
>>
>> So I would say that the GNOME team is within its rights in managing
>> its spin. Whether it is named default etc is someone else's problem.
>>
> This has come up before and I think it's just plain unclear :-(
>
> The problem is that the desktop spin and the default spin are kinda two
> different roles but they are occupied by the same Product.  In browsing old
> tickets, I see some times when fesco has decided the default spin didn't
> have to do what other other things did and sometimes when fesco said they
> did.  AFAICS, there's been no generalized policy put into place in regards
> to this.  So it's something that is decided on in every case where it comes
> up.
>
> I don't think anyone thought they were doing anything wrong by making the
> change in the desktop spin but because the desktop spin has more than one
> owner, I've sent it back to FESCo to vote on whether allowing this change
> there is something we intended or not.

Unless you are willing to change the definition of "default" from
"spin" to "product", and making product something more broadly
governed, you're going to be stuck playing these games.  If you aren't
willing to do that, then you're limited to asking spins to adhere to
concepts of what FESCo thinks should be defaults.

So the choice you have is to work with the existing structure and find
the spin that best fits the default criteria, or enforce rules on a
spin because it is "default" which both restricts it compared to other
spins and elevates it beyond spin status at the same time.

Fun.

josh