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

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Wed Apr 9 00:14:37 UTC 2014


On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 01:26:23PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 06:02:02AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > not sure that the ruby scl should have its own change.  It needs to have
> 
> FWIW, I'm happy to have a distinct change because I want to call this out in
> the marketing.
> 
Note -- I called out the need to talk to the docs and marketing team in my
email because I think that we'll probably want to publicize all SCLs so the
SCL approval process should probably also get something into the docs and
marketing queue.  A separate Fedora Change might be extraneous in this
regard -- I'm thinking that fesco probably doesn't need to re-approve
an SCL  that FPC has already approved.

OTOH, how does the Cloud SIG want to use the SCL?  If they want to create
things that are outside of the SCL that make use of it, that would seem to
be a point of coordination and thus would be Fedora Change worthy... On yet
another hand, though, having something not in an SCL depend on something
that's in an scl was something that I was told we (FPC) shouldn't put into
the first draft of the guidelines.  Instead things that require SCLs must be
placed inside of an SCL.

I guess -- there needs to be a bit more information about what is desired
here to know whether that would require a rethink of some of the
foundational goals that were given to me.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140408/e5e4baa4/attachment.sig>


More information about the devel mailing list