Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

Josh Boyer jwboyer at fedoraproject.org
Wed Jan 29 21:33:12 UTC 2014

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 4:03 PM, inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:57 PM, H. Guémar <hguemar at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I think we should keep spins as long as we don't have a formal process to
>> accept new products.
>> Something like => proposal => crop (aka product-to-be) => validation =>
>> product
>> When we'll have that, drop the whole spin thing, any spin that isn't fit to
>> be a product should be reclassified as remix.
> Why do we expect spins to be any more official products than they are now?
> I can't really imagine this ever working. Do you imagine a day where
> Fedora has 20, 30, 50 official products? I don't.
> I'd rather not confuse what is made from Fedora bits with what is
> based on Fedora bits but includes other bits. The remix branding does
> not seem appropriate for spins that are made purely from Fedora bits.

That's fair.  From a resource and quality perspective though, I'd
rather not burden rel-eng and QA with having to maintain, create, and
test spins.  They can be done entirely outside of Fedora.  They can be
created and hosted on their own sites, etc.

F20 improved spins overall, but that was because of a concerted effort
with our existing resources.  If Fedora.next is going to succeed,
those resources are already going to be overwhelmed with the 3
products.  Spreading them thinner for little benefit in most cases
seems irresponsible.


More information about the devel mailing list