Fedora 20 new planning process and schedules

Dan Mashal dan.mashal at gmail.com
Tue Jun 4 14:23:10 UTC 2013

On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch at redhat.com> wrote:
> Dne 3.6.2013 19:04, Dan Mashal napsal(a):
>> What is a system wide change vs a self contained change vs a new change?
> That is good question. I was always against distinguishing between these
> two, but ....
> For example, if there will be new release of Ruby, I am going to propose
> them as a "self contained" change, since it is less bureaucracy and let the
> community decide, if the change is controversial and FESCo should decide.
> And I would suggest everybody to do the same.

So would python 2.7 -> 3 be a self contained change? Would glib
deprecations be a self contained change?

Personally, whether it "should" or "shouldn't" harm some things I
don't really see a problem with doing it the old way, so even no one
really cares that much about python 3 it's still listed as a new
feature on one page in addition to new or old spins.

Another example is MATE 1.4 -> 1.6, sure this is a self contained
change but it's still considered a new feature. Is Gnome 3.6 -> 3.8 a
feature? Sure it is.

Is Anaconda a "self contained" feature? Definitely not. Is there
really much meaning to putting Anaconda listed as a feature? Not
really IMHO. There's a lot of grey area here and I just see this kind
of complicating things more. With respect to all "features" mentioned.


More information about the devel mailing list