F7 Plan (draft)

[Bill Nottingham]

Rahul Sundaram (sundaram at fedoraproject.org) said: 
> >Another one of our release targets. Needs defined by Test 2.
> 
> Is there any specific plans for the desktop and server? The only new 
> feature is I see listed is fast user switching.  What other differences 
> are there besides the set of packages?  Are all these variants single 
> CD's each?

TBD. That's why there are people to do it.

> >6. A Fedora KDE spin of F7
> >Accountable: Rex Dieter
> >
> >Like Fedora Desktop, but with KDE.
> 
> Have we thought about having a DVD/CD set of *all* packages? That would 
> be useful for many places whether bandwidth or network access is 
> constrained.

The Fedora 5-DVD Speical Edition Directors Cut with Added Footage?

> The GNOME spin is called "Fedora Desktop" while the KDE 
> one is called "Fedora KDE". Might consider more consistent branding. 
> Speaking about KDE, are we looking at KDE 4?

/me points at Rex. AFAIK, KDE4 is still a ways off.

> >10. Boot and shutdown speedup
> >Accountable: me!, David Zeuthen, YOUR NAME HERE
> >
> >We do enough Stupid Stuff that we can make easy improvements to startup
> >and shutdown time without large systemic changes. Includes: tagging of
> >scripts that don't need shut down, profiling of boot, potential changes
> >to how we organize disk blocks, and more.
> 
> Can we look at splitting up packages more during the mass review 
> process? There were many discussions in fedora-devel list and bugzilla 
> reports filed a while back.

Not sure how that applies to this feature, but it's possible. However,
'splitting up packages' isn't really a feature without some sort of
guidelines as to what we're trying to do. I mean, we could build a
separate subpackage for each binary in coreutils if we wanted to. 

> Also it would be useful to look having a good client similar to 
> bug-buddy but system wide for reporting bugs. Are we planning to have a 
> new bugzilla instance at fedoraproject.org?

Not currently, no.

> >21. Real-time kernel
> >Accountable: Ingo Molnar, Dave Jones
> >
> >Because fake-time kernels are so last year
> 
> Is the motivation behind this the integration of Planet CCRMA? Are we 
> going to start allowing alternative kernel like this into Fedora?

It's just an idea at this point. Considering what DaveJ said about
its upstream status, it's likely to fall off the list.

Bill