Re: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2010-February/007978...
Through an oversight, the Board hadn't addressed TM approval for the new Security Spin. If the Board were to approve it tomorrow (slightly late according to the published schedule), would that cause any problems for the Infrastructure, Release Engineering, or QA teams?
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 15:48 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
Re: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2010-February/007978...
Through an oversight, the Board hadn't addressed TM approval for the new Security Spin. If the Board were to approve it tomorrow (slightly late according to the published schedule), would that cause any problems for the Infrastructure, Release Engineering, or QA teams?
None that I'm aware of from releng side, but I honestly don't know what the list of spins for F13 is going to be.
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 13:10 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 15:48 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
Re: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2010-February/007978...
Through an oversight, the Board hadn't addressed TM approval for the new Security Spin. If the Board were to approve it tomorrow (slightly late according to the published schedule), would that cause any problems for the Infrastructure, Release Engineering, or QA teams?
None that I'm aware of from releng side, but I honestly don't know what the list of spins for F13 is going to be.
I'm not aware of any planned testing for the Security spin, so there wouldn't be issue with this late arrival for QA.
Of course, if there is interest in fleshing out testing the Spin, or including it in release validation efforts ... we can work with the Security folks on that.
Thanks, James
On 02/17/2010 10:10 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 15:48 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
Re: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2010-February/007978...
Through an oversight, the Board hadn't addressed TM approval for the new Security Spin. If the Board were to approve it tomorrow (slightly late according to the published schedule), would that cause any problems for the Infrastructure, Release Engineering, or QA teams?
None that I'm aware of from releng side, but I honestly don't know what the list of spins for F13 is going to be.
The list of spins at this moment in time is at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Spins_Fedora_13
9 of these are to be included in the Release, excluding Desktop and KDE which for some reason are outside of the Spins SIG's processes completely.
We agreed on making available the an RPM package through rawhide, which is built and should land in rawhide (and F-13 after a tag request I believe?)
-- Jeroen
On 02/18/2010 11:32 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
On 02/17/2010 10:10 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 15:48 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
Re: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2010-February/007978...
Through an oversight, the Board hadn't addressed TM approval for the new Security Spin. If the Board were to approve it tomorrow (slightly late according to the published schedule), would that cause any problems for the Infrastructure, Release Engineering, or QA teams?
None that I'm aware of from releng side, but I honestly don't know what the list of spins for F13 is going to be.
The list of spins at this moment in time is at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Spins_Fedora_13
9 of these are to be included in the Release, excluding Desktop and KDE which for some reason are outside of the Spins SIG's processes completely.
We agreed on making available the an RPM package through rawhide, which is built and should land in rawhide (and F-13 after a tag request I believe?)
And so it turns out F-13 is already in Bodhi, which I've used to put in an update request. The package name is fedora-kickstarts, which contains (should contain) all the kickstarts for media part of the release, including it's dependencies (the base kickstarts).
-- Jeroen
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:32 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com wrote: <snip>
The list of spins at this moment in time is at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Spins_Fedora_13
9 of these are to be included in the Release, excluding Desktop and KDE which for some reason are outside of the Spins SIG's processes completely.
<snip>
Why exactly are these two excluded from the spins process?
-AdamM
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 09:09 -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
Why exactly are these two excluded from the spins process?
Because they have been granted permanent spin status by the board.
On 02/18/2010 04:37 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 09:09 -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
Why exactly are these two excluded from the spins process?
Because they have been granted permanent spin status by the board.
Although that just so happens to be true as well, that's not a reason for the Spins to not be a part of the process.
-- Jeroen
On 02/18/2010 04:09 PM, Adam Miller wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:32 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com wrote:
<snip> > > The list of spins at this moment in time is at: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Spins_Fedora_13 > > 9 of these are to be included in the Release, excluding Desktop and KDE > which for some reason are outside of the Spins SIG's processes completely. <snip>
Why exactly are these two excluded from the spins process?
I can't think of any reason.
-- Jeroen
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 19:42 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
On 02/18/2010 04:09 PM, Adam Miller wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:32 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com wrote:
<snip> > > The list of spins at this moment in time is at: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Spins_Fedora_13 > > 9 of these are to be included in the Release, excluding Desktop and KDE > which for some reason are outside of the Spins SIG's processes completely. <snip>
Why exactly are these two excluded from the spins process?
I can't think of any reason.
Historically it was because the "spins" were things "different" from the main distribution. The main distribution was the DVD, and the gnome/kde live images were subsets of that dvd in live form. Ergo they weren't "spins", they were just smaller live versions of the main distribution.
That was history, things have and are changing. But since we're already past feature freeze for Fedora 13, it looks like Fedora 13 will be more of the same. A DVD with both gnome and kde, live versions of gnome and kde, and a number of "spins" which are different from the main offerings.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 09:09:51AM -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:32 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com wrote:
<snip> > > The list of spins at this moment in time is at: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Spins_Fedora_13 > > 9 of these are to be included in the Release, excluding Desktop and KDE > which for some reason are outside of the Spins SIG's processes completely. <snip>
Why exactly are these two excluded from the spins process?
I would imagine it's because in relative terms they have a very large maintainer base in Fedora. The recurring spins process page[1] says this:
"This process safe-guards that at least somebody looks at the spin itself as well as the Spin page, and prevents major changes to the spin from going unnoticed. It is not like all recurring spins will have to go through the entire review process step-by-step once more."
There are a (relatively) huge number of people providing this assurance already. Is there appreciable value in adding more steps to the process?
* * * [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Spins_Recurring_Releases
On 02/18/2010 08:19 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 09:09:51AM -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:32 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com wrote:
<snip> > > The list of spins at this moment in time is at: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Spins_Fedora_13 > > 9 of these are to be included in the Release, excluding Desktop and KDE > which for some reason are outside of the Spins SIG's processes completely. <snip>
Why exactly are these two excluded from the spins process?
I would imagine it's because in relative terms they have a very large maintainer base in Fedora. The recurring spins process page[1] says this:
"This process safe-guards that at least somebody looks at the spin itself as well as the Spin page, and prevents major changes to the spin from going unnoticed. It is not like all recurring spins will have to go through the entire review process step-by-step once more."
This step is in the process to ensure somebody looks at the spin, rather then make assumptions and exceptions to the process, based on the number of people we think may be involved in the Spin.
There are a (relatively) huge number of people providing this assurance already. Is there appreciable value in adding more steps to the process?
I would rather have the SIG be in a position to make the assumption that the Desktop and KDE spins are safe and well-cared of rather then the Fedora Project itself doing so, and I would want to eliminate the "exception to the normal process" for these spins so that we have one less exception to the rules.
-- Jeroen
On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 15:01 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
I would rather have the SIG be in a position to make the assumption that the Desktop and KDE spins are safe and well-cared of rather then the Fedora Project itself doing so, and I would want to eliminate the "exception to the normal process" for these spins so that we have one less exception to the rules.
I still don't see the Desktop an KDE live images as "spins". The KDE one is borderline.
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 08:19:57AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 15:01 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
I would rather have the SIG be in a position to make the assumption that the Desktop and KDE spins are safe and well-cared of rather then the Fedora Project itself doing so, and I would want to eliminate the "exception to the normal process" for these spins so that we have one less exception to the rules.
I still don't see the Desktop an KDE live images as "spins". The KDE one is borderline.
While I do see the KDE Live image as a spin, the fact remains that I can name a sizable handful of people who are constantly involved in ensuring its proper working order. Messrs. Kofler, Dieter, Ngo, Parrish, Řezník, and Boeckel come to mind off hand. I'm sure there are quite a few others.
On 02/20/2010 06:24 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 08:19:57AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 15:01 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
I would rather have the SIG be in a position to make the assumption that the Desktop and KDE spins are safe and well-cared of rather then the Fedora Project itself doing so, and I would want to eliminate the "exception to the normal process" for these spins so that we have one less exception to the rules.
I still don't see the Desktop an KDE live images as "spins". The KDE one is borderline.
While I do see the KDE Live image as a spin, the fact remains that I can name a sizable handful of people who are constantly involved in ensuring its proper working order. Messrs. Kofler, Dieter, Ngo, Parrish, Řezník, and Boeckel come to mind off hand. I'm sure there are quite a few others.
I fail to see how the number of people involved (that we know of, that we can point out) is part of the definition of a "spin".
-- Jeroen
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 02:43:54PM +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
On 02/20/2010 06:24 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 08:19:57AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 15:01 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
I would rather have the SIG be in a position to make the assumption that the Desktop and KDE spins are safe and well-cared of rather then the Fedora Project itself doing so, and I would want to eliminate the "exception to the normal process" for these spins so that we have one less exception to the rules.
I still don't see the Desktop an KDE live images as "spins". The KDE one is borderline.
While I do see the KDE Live image as a spin, the fact remains that I can name a sizable handful of people who are constantly involved in ensuring its proper working order. Messrs. Kofler, Dieter, Ngo, Parrish, Řezník, and Boeckel come to mind off hand. I'm sure there are quite a few others.
I fail to see how the number of people involved (that we know of, that we can point out) is part of the definition of a "spin".
I wasn't proposing a definition of spins based on number of people. I think we have a good definition for spins already, which is that spins are customized remixes of Fedora, specifically those with trademark approval -- images other than the standard DVD and Desktop images that our community produces. I was just trying to answer the question of why the Desktop and KDE images might not need an extra layer of review, given that they each have many people actively reviewing them.
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 11:32 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Spins_Fedora_13
9 of these are to be included in the Release, excluding Desktop and KDE which for some reason are outside of the Spins SIG's processes completely.
When will you know which 9? I assume the QA test day one won't be, so that just leaves one more to trim?
On 02/18/2010 04:40 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 11:32 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Spins_Fedora_13
9 of these are to be included in the Release, excluding Desktop and KDE which for some reason are outside of the Spins SIG's processes completely.
When will you know which 9? I assume the QA test day one won't be, so that just leaves one more to trim?
Each of the nine is in the fedora-kickstarts package. The rest of it ends up in the custom-kickstarts and l10n-kickstarts packages.
-- Jeroen
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 07:40:13 -0800, Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com wrote:
When will you know which 9? I assume the QA test day one won't be, so that just leaves one more to trim?
The QA test day is is just ks only. There is no intention to publish that as an iso for release, alpha or beta.
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Adam Miller -
Bruno Wolff III -
James Laska -
Jeroen van Meeuwen -
Jesse Keating -
Paul W. Frields