Fedora 20 new planning process and schedules

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Dan Mashal <dan.mashal at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Sure.  FESCo doesn't care if it's a feature or not.

> 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.

That's why it's no longer called the Feature process.  FESCo is an
engineering committee and has no business determining if something is
a Feature in an upcoming release of the distro.  That is a marketing
task.  The new process focuses on technical changes within the distro
and whether those changes require cooperation between maintainers or
additional help or oversight.

josh