Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
johannbg at gmail.com
Wed Jan 29 22:07:47 UTC 2014
On 01/29/2014 09:33 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> 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:
>>> 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 =>
>>> 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.
You do realize that you are faced with exact same problem as are with
spins with " wg product(s)" and the resolution is the same.
The sub-community producing it will have to put up the QA resources to
manage and test whatever is put on top of core/base and I would think
the same applies from releng perspective.
To put this differently as I see it both communities QA and Releng only
serve as overseers and guiding forces but wont put *any* resources
themselves into spins nor wg product(s) since those resources will have
to come from the sub communities producing spins or wg product(s).
More information about the devel