Announcing the Fedora EDU Spin Preview
 

Jesse Keating wrote:

> On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 17:15 +0200, Sebastian Dziallas wrote:
>> The spin contains a KDE 4.1 preview and
>> therefore uses the repos at kde-redhat.
>
> BZZzzz! This makes it not Fedora, please to be removing trademarks or
> non Fedora packages.

bleh, I knew this was all too easy. :)

OK, so is s/fedora-logos/generic-logos/ sufficient?

Fwiw, these previews are only temporary until the final bits land
(officially) in fedora (soonish ~3 weeks).

-- Rex



--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Announcing the Fedora EDU Spin Preview
 

On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 11:22 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 17:15 +0200, Sebastian Dziallas wrote:
> > The spin contains a KDE 4.1 preview and
> > therefore uses the repos at kde-redhat.
>
> BZZzzz! This makes it not Fedora, please to be removing trademarks or
> non Fedora packages.

Yeah, shouldn't do that.

I don't understand why you need to use the repos at kde-redhat anyway...
Fedora rawhide already contains a preview of KDE 4.1 as I understand it.

Also, you need to get Board/Spin SIG/Rel Eng approval to call a spin a
Fedora spin.

josh

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Announcing the Fedora EDU Spin Preview
 

Jesse Keating wrote:

On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 17:15 +0200, Sebastian Dziallas wrote:
The spin contains a KDE 4.1 preview and
therefore uses the repos at kde-redhat.


BZZzzz! This makes it not Fedora, please to be removing trademarks or
non Fedora packages.



Also, you need to get approval from the Spin SIG and Board before you
can call it a spin.


https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Spins/SpinSubmissionProcess

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Announcing the Fedora EDU Spin Preview
 

On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 10:43 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 17:15 +0200, Sebastian Dziallas wrote:
> >> The spin contains a KDE 4.1 preview and
> >> therefore uses the repos at kde-redhat.
> >
> > BZZzzz! This makes it not Fedora, please to be removing trademarks or
> > non Fedora packages.
>
> bleh, I knew this was all too easy. :)
>
> OK, so is s/fedora-logos/generic-logos/ sufficient?
>
> Fwiw, these previews are only temporary until the final bits land
> (officially) in fedora (soonish ~3 weeks).

and don't call it fedora edu, i think.

-sv


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Announcing the Fedora EDU Spin Preview
 

Josh Boyer wrote:

> On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 11:22 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 17:15 +0200, Sebastian Dziallas wrote:
>> > The spin contains a KDE 4.1 preview and
>> > therefore uses the repos at kde-redhat.
>>
>> BZZzzz! This makes it not Fedora, please to be removing trademarks or
>> non Fedora packages.
>
> Yeah, shouldn't do that.
>
> I don't understand why you need to use the repos at kde-redhat anyway...
> Fedora rawhide already contains a preview of KDE 4.1 as I understand it.

The spin there is based on F-9 (atm anyway)

-- Rex

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Announcing the Fedora EDU Spin Preview
 

On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 10:51 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 11:22 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 17:15 +0200, Sebastian Dziallas wrote:
> >> > The spin contains a KDE 4.1 preview and
> >> > therefore uses the repos at kde-redhat.
> >>
> >> BZZzzz! This makes it not Fedora, please to be removing trademarks or
> >> non Fedora packages.
> >
> > Yeah, shouldn't do that.
> >
> > I don't understand why you need to use the repos at kde-redhat anyway...
> > Fedora rawhide already contains a preview of KDE 4.1 as I understand it.
>
> The spin there is based on F-9 (atm anyway)

Right, which is another "problem". We _really_ want new Spins to be
part of the release process, which means this should start at F10 if it
wants to be an official spin.

josh

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Announcing the Fedora EDU Spin Preview
 

Jesse Keating wrote:

> On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 17:15 +0200, Sebastian Dziallas wrote:
>> The spin contains a KDE 4.1 preview and
>> therefore uses the repos at kde-redhat.
>
> BZZzzz! This makes it not Fedora, please to be removing trademarks or
> non Fedora packages.

Alrighy, I'll pull what's out there, until we can produce something that
doesn't run awry of the rules.

My bad, apologies.

-- Rex

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Announcing the Fedora EDU Spin Preview
 

Josh Boyer wrote:


>> The spin there is based on F-9 (atm anyway)
>
> Right, which is another "problem". We _really_ want new Spins to be
> part of the release process, which means this should start at F10 if it
> wants to be an official spin.

That is/was the plan, this was to serve only as a preview for
testing/feedback, nothing more.

-- Rex


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Announcing the Fedora EDU Spin Preview
 

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@gmail.com> wrote:
> Right, which is another "problem". We _really_ want new Spins to be
> part of the release process, which means this should start at F10 if it
> wants to be an official spin.

Just to be clear, there's no hard policy in place which would prevent
spin creators to work against the current release and looking to get
it into the kickstart pool and trademark approval.. is there?

I can understand the need to get things built against the development
tree as early in the pre-release process as possible if the goal is to
have spins as part of the next release..with a hosting commitment for
binaries that comes with that.

The only significant problem here that I see is that they pushed ahead
and used non-fedora binaries in what they published. Preview
binaries are great, because it shows that these particular Spin
developers are making their best effort to get this working and tested
so when it comes time to approve things that conversation should go
smoothly. This could just be a matter of..education...concerning how
we expect people to go about doing this sort of pre-approval testing
and reviewing The open question is, what is the best practices for
spins in this pre-approval testing phase and how do we make sure
people developing spins know about them.

Obviously we need to make sure such spins make use of the generic
logos. We don't want anyone out in the wild to get the idea that this
is a baked concept. The generic logos are there specifically so we
can do preview spins like this.

The less obvious question is can we give people guidance as to what
they should call these sorts of previews in the future. These sort of
things are going to get created, with the intent of pushing tested
versions through the approval process.

-jef

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Announcing the Fedora EDU Spin Preview
 

On Thursday 10 July 2008 21:27:37 Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> Preview
> binaries are great, because it shows that these particular Spin
> developers are making their best effort to get this working and tested
> so when it comes time to approve things that conversation should go
> smoothly.

The question is a sense more general than just spins, other than the kde
packages from kde-redhat that I use I have previously used other repositories
from packages intended to be previews of next version of Fedora but released
to the current stable release.

>From the top of my head I remember:

- python 2.5
- texlive (to replace tetex)
- emacs 22 (?)
- kernel (Dave had his repository working for some time)

I am sure that there were more, the funny part is that those repositories were
not "official" - for any definition of official, although the maintainers were
the Fedora maintainers of the respective packages. So the need of those
repositories is understood but they are stealth as they fall out of the radar.

I would have expected that by now we had some kind of mechanism to deal with
such cases other than the non-official stance of every of those repositories.

I am aware of the perils involved, the existence of another level of testing
with the resulting lack of attention for rawhide, or even the inter-
compatibility of said repositories (although this has never a concern in
practice, any problem was quickly identified and fixed).

So I would like to see a figure of separate projects that still fall under the
umbrella of Fedora, that track experimental packages over the current stable
version.
The whole process should be run by FESCO on a basis to basis case. This would
avoid the situation that we have now where we have hybrids (repositories) that
are neither Fedora but they are created exclusively with the single purpose of
testing packages for future inclusion in Fedora. Schizophrenic seems like a
good description of the current behavior. ;-)

--
José Abílio

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list