[Fedora-spins] spins in f19

[Brendan Jones]

On 01/30/2013 05:01 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> On Sunday 27 of January 2013 14:53:54 Christoph Wickert wrote:
>> Am Freitag, den 25.01.2013, 13:54 -0700 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
>>> So, we had a fudcon session about spins, but it was merged with the
>>> talk on Fedora Formulas and we didn't really decide anything about
>>> spins.
>>
>> Glad to hear that.
>>
>> I saw the session on Youtube and I disagree to a lot that was said. I
>> think it's good that things are not set in stone yet.
>>
>>> Formulas aren't going to fully replace spins, and even if they do, they
>>> likely won't be ready for f19 anyhow, so we need to figure out what we
>>> do for f19 now.
>>>
>>> a) what about the new spins that didn't get added in f18?
>>> If their spin owners are actually active, they should chime in and
>>> commit their ks to git and update the f19 spins page with their size
>>> and so releng knows to produce them.
>>>
>>> b) Any new spins need to SUBMIT THEIR KS FILES ASAP so we can avoid
>>> problems where things don't make it.
>>>
>>> c) There's no meetings, Christoph is swamped, how do we want to handle
>>> the day to day business of the sig?
>>
>> Fortunately I'm not *that* swamped any longer and I am currently working
>> on our trac to move the spin reviews from the wiki to the track
>> instance.
>>
>>> I was thinking we should require at each freeze point that any spins we
>>> promote on spins.fedoraproject.org have at least 2 people sign off that
>>> they tested them and they basically work. If 0 people do this sign off,
>>> we should still produce them, but they sit in alt and don't get
>>> promoted anywhere. If a spin doesn't get any testing for an entire
>>> cycle, we drop them completely.
>>
>> Makes sense, but IHMO dropping a spin will only make things
>> worse.Without live media, there is no easy way to test things and the in
>> the end, things that received little testing will be tested even less.
>> It seems that even KDE didn't get proper testing this time and I think
>> we all agree we cannot drop it.
>
> No proper testing for KDE? Really?
>
> I see quite a good coverage even for LXDE, Xfce and Sugar [1].

Fedora Jam: we are pretty pedantic when it comes to testing. Using KDE 
as a base you could say that it is well covered also