Fedora Board Recap 2008-FEB-12
jwboyer at gmail.com
Fri Feb 15 18:25:50 UTC 2008
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:10:52 -0800
John Poelstra <poelstra at redhat.com> wrote:
> === Post-release updates of custom spins (2008-01-29) ===
> * Should the board have to approve them?
> * We will hosts as many spins as we have space for
Still wondering if there is some kind of hierarchy or priority for
> * Need to determine the hosting requirements and limits
> * How long will spins stay around?
I suggested EOL along with the base they are on. Any thoughts on that?
> * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RahulSundaram/SpinsProcess
> * ACTION: Jef to review Rahul's proposal and report back to board
> * OWNER: Jef Spaleta
> * '''FOLLOWUP on 2008-02-12'''
> * Jef is waiting for feedback from Jeremy Katz on release
> engineering's perspective
> * Reference:
> * People are still not clear on exactly what is required to create
> an official "Fedora Spin"
> * Need a clear list of guidelines of what a spin owner is
> responsible for and what they are required to test
> * Hoping a test will come from Jeremy Katz as part of feedback
> from release engineering
I think this should have said "...test matrix.." ?
> * We are only talking about spins that use GA packages, thus testing
> for GA should have given us enough comfort that risk is minimized
> * We only need to be concerned with new combination of packages
> that a spin would present
This isn't quite true. Spins are done against the repos that exists on
the day they are generated. So if there are issues/bugs in the
base+updates repos on that day, there will be bugs in the spin. For
example, the recent Xfce spin we sort of lucked out that it pulled in a
kernel with the security fixes for the vmsplice vulnerability.
(Not quite sure what you meant by "GA", so we may be saying similar
More information about the fedora-advisory-board