Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > And we call these spins now. > > > , but I do also see that there are legal and > > administrative reasons for why that could be a bad idea, but I am sure > that > > with > > some discussion and investigation there are solutions that can be found > to > > these practical challenges. > > That's one idea behind remixes - make it as easy as possible to remix > Fedora > outside of Fedora space to avoid legal issues. > Why is it a legal issue to have remix or spins in fedora space when they are already shipping only free software? I am not sure I really follow you here. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: > > I think you're misinterpreting the words of Christian. Red Hat (also > my employer, but speaking for myself here) can't and shouldn't be pay > to fix and QA spins like LXDE or MATE. If keeping a MATE spin makes it > harder or slower for the people developing GNOME (which Red Hat should > sponsor) then I don't see the problem in his statement. Red Hat spends > a ton of money on Fedora, and I think a lot of the community seem to > forget that. The QA already doesn't have blockers for spins. As adam has mentioned spins don't affect QA's work or progress at all. I understand red hat spends a lot of money on fedora, but wielding the spins away is definitely a bad rapport for the community and it in turn a negative thing to participate for the project too. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Christian Schaller wrote: > What I mean to say is that Red Hat has a business motive to support the > Fedora community, > if supporting Fedora was a pure act of charity then I think organizations > like the Red Cross > or Unicef would have a much better chance of getting the money. > > So if the Fedora community wants to not care about why Red Hat invests in > Fedora they are of course free to do so, > but it becomes quite disingenuous to later be surprised if Red Hat loses > interest in Fedora. > well this kind of strategy towards the community is not very inspiring for the new contributors, is it? I think there is interest in the fedora community for Gnome as well as other DE which RHEL doesn't ship. But since this thread has been moving in a direction where the Fedora spins are under threat to exist in the repos doesn't bode well for the packages that is not of interest to red hat. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Christian Schaller wrote: > The difference here is that the resources for GNOME (or anything else Red > Hat needs for future versions of RHEL) are > provided by Red Hat. So if you want the spins to the logically the same in > terms of resources we should start demanding > that any spin set up needs to provide an annual monetary contribution to > help pay for the Fedora infrastructure and team. > So you mean to say the software(already existing in the repos) which is not of interest for red hat should pay to stay for fedora infrastructure and Team to stay in the fedora repos? This looks like clear business motive and no point in calling it a community project at all. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Adam Williamson 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 Fedora. I know a lot of people who use spins rather than the default Gnome-desktop-Live. Please don't gutter the spins ! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
