Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

piruthiviraj natarajan piruthiviraj at gmail.com
Thu Jan 30 04:21:57 UTC 2014

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com>wrote:

> 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.

As a user of Fedora I like to say that Fedora spins give so much value to
I know a lot of people who use spins rather than the default
 Please don't gutter the spins !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140130/757e01fa/attachment.html>

More information about the devel mailing list