Agenda for Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-04-08)

Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano at redhat.com
Tue Apr 8 14:16:58 UTC 2014


On 04/08/2014 03:02 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> On Apr 7, 2014 10:28 AM, "Marcela Mašláňová" <mmaslano at redhat.com
> <mailto:mmaslano at redhat.com>> wrote:
>  >
>  > WG meeting will be at 16:00 UTC, 17:00 Central Europe, 12:00 (noon)
> Boston, 9:00 San Francisco, 1:00 Tokyo in #fedora-meeting on Freenode.
>  >
>  > == Topic ==
>  > I sent three Change proposals. If you have any comments, please share
> them.
>  > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SCL
>  > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Playground_repository
>  > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Ruby193_in_SCL
>  >
> not sure that the ruby scl should have its own change.  It needs to have
> the equivalent filed for the fpc to evaluate, though.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/SCL_Guidelines_(draft)#SCL_Approval_Process
>
> Since the guidelines aren't final, probably open an fpc ticket so the
> fpc sees the request and more that it's needed for the fedora scl
> change.  Although the scl package guidelines aren't final, the
> guidelines/criteria for approving the scl itself were approved so fpc
> should be able to evaluate it in parallel to finishing the packaging
> guidelines.
>
> If we remove the ruby scl change we should add more to the main scl
> change, though, about expectations around the scl approval.  For
> instance, we probably want to touch base with docs/marketing to see if
> they want to publicize scls in the exact same way as fedora changes or
> have a slightly different procedure.
>
> Also note, in case no one saw it in either fpc or fesco meeting notes,
> I'm traveling to a week and a half conference now followed by a week and
> a half of vacation.so I likely won't be around for any fedora meetings
> until april 27th (and playing catch up with my email for that first week.)
>
> -Toshio
>
>
>
I'm trying to provide feature needed by Cloud WG, that's all. I can file 
a new ticket on FPC, but wouldn't it just duplicate communication about 
General SCL guidelines?
Ruby193 could test workflow around SCL in Fedora, that's another good 
reason to try how far can I get it and what won't work :)

I would prefer to keep my changes as is and let FESCo decide.

Marcela


More information about the devel mailing list