Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
Thu Jan 30 04:12:36 UTC 2014

On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 16:33 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:

> > 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.

The 'burden' they create on QA is precisely zero, as we explicitly do
not block releases on spins other than desktop and KDE. I don't believe
releng considers the spins much of a burden, either - it's more just
that they don't like building and pushing out stuff that no-one's even
done a sanity check on. However, we have several high quality spins that
people *do* care about and *do* test: at least the desktop spins, but I
know for e.g. finalzone puts a lot of work into the design spin.

I think it's fairly presumptuous to suggest chucking all that stuff in
favour of something that doesn't even *exist* yet.

> 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.

Again, there is no 'burden' on QA due to spins.
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net

More information about the devel mailing list