On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 16:17 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 04:40 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> That's a very lame excuse for sticking with an awful desktop environment
> >> as the default just because it is the status quo.
> >
> > Not excellent...pl
Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 04:40 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> > And I would argue that having the user interface swing wildly in design
>> > & implementation based on "the current composition of an elected board
>> > that is refreshed in part every si
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 04:40 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > And I would argue that having the user interface swing wildly in design &
> > implementation based on "the current composition of an elected board that
> > is refreshed in part every six months" is not the sort of s
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> And I would argue that having the user interface swing wildly in design &
> implementation based on "the current composition of an elected board that
> is refreshed in part every six months" is not the sort of situation that
> Fedora would want to be in anyway.
That's a ve
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 19:56 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
>> It is up to each WG to determine their product requirements. That
>> includes which architectures and target users they are trying to
>> produce a product for.
>>
>> > We've done a
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 19:56 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
>> It is up to each WG to determine their product requirements. That
>> includes which architectures and target users they are trying to
>> produce a product for.
>>
>> > We've done a
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 19:56 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> It is up to each WG to determine their product requirements. That
> includes which architectures and target users they are trying to
> produce a product for.
>
> > We've done a lot of work over the last few cycles to really bump ARM up
> > t
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-10-04 at 07:49 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> > We just started to support ARM, I don't think we want to drop it.
>> > I guess those three products are currently most important and
>> > other products like Embedded should g
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:29:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I really think whatever the New Way Of Doing Things turns out to be, it
> needs to include a minimal network install image much like the current
> netinst.iso, built for all primary arches, as a primary deliverable.
> Whether that's
On Fri, 2013-10-04 at 07:49 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > We just started to support ARM, I don't think we want to drop it.
> > I guess those three products are currently most important and
> > other products like Embedded should go into Spins category. At
> > least for now.
> Yes, we're pro
Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) said:
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> >> No, the intent was very much to change what the resulting desktop
> >> prioritizes. Quite a few FESCo members would be rather disappointed
> >> if the new Workstation ended
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> No, the intent was very much to change what the resulting desktop
>> prioritizes. Quite a few FESCo members would be rather disappointed
>> if the new Workstation ended up just an unchanged GNOME[1].
> [snip]
>> [1] A
Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> No, the intent was very much to change what the resulting desktop
> prioritizes. Quite a few FESCo members would be rather disappointed
> if the new Workstation ended up just an unchanged GNOME[1].
[snip]
> [1] As opposed to any of 1) non-GNOME, 2) GNOME changed by Fedora,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/02/2013 05:05 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> Hello, Two updates arising from today's FESCo meeting:
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
>> The nomination period will be at least one month from this
>> announcement.
>
> T
On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 16:47 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> That's quite the assumption and based on that I assume the next step
> planned is to kill the server list and just mobiles the people
> interested here right.
I suggest assuming good faith instead.
- ajax
--
devel mailing l
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 05:41:28PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Because there's no active server sub-community. The people interested in
> server work are working within the general Fedora development community,
> which means devel@ is the appropriate list to reach them.
I also posted to deve
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:47:34PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 10/11/2013 04:41 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >Because there's no active server sub-community. The people interested in
> >server work are working within the general Fedora development community,
> >which means devel@ is
On 10/11/2013 04:41 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:33:24PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>On 10/11/2013 04:27 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >>>Was there any attempt to reach out to the relevant sub-community was
> >>>there a mail or discussion held on the server li
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:33:24PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 10/11/2013 04:27 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >>>Was there any attempt to reach out to the relevant sub-community was
> >>>there a mail or discussion held on the server list even if only to
> >>>see who where active on it
On 10/11/2013 04:27 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>Was there any attempt to reach out to the relevant sub-community was
>there a mail or discussion held on the server list even if only to
>see who where active on it?
Given that the last mail to the server list was over 18 months ago, the
answer is
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:19:00PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 10/11/2013 03:59 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >community representatives on FESCo and the board discussed it. All of
> >this happened in public. Which community do you feel was given no
> >opportunity to represent their o
On 10/11/2013 03:59 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 03:53:39PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
Did someone even bother to reach out to the community and ask them
how they would like to move forward?
( Not that I recall any thread doing just that )
It was discussed at F
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 03:53:39PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Did someone even bother to reach out to the community and ask them
> how they would like to move forward?
> ( Not that I recall any thread doing just that )
It was discussed at Flock. It was discussed on this mailing list.
On 10/11/2013 01:58 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
The fact that we don't have a
successful server SIG/spin was seen as a problem that needs to be
fixed, not as a reason to continue avoiding server uses.
Interesting when and how was that conclusion reached?
Yeah sure the server sub-community got qu
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 03:58:41PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> No, the intent was very much to change what the resulting desktop
> prioritizes. Quite a few FESCo members would be rather disappointed
> if the new Workstation ended up just an unchanged GNOME[1].
? The intent was very much for t
On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 15:58 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > But the current spins will become even more second-class citizens than they
> > are right now, whereas 2 spins of dubious value to our real-world users
> > (Server and Cloud) get fea
Hello,
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> But the current spins will become even more second-class citizens than they
> are right now, whereas 2 spins of dubious value to our real-world users
> (Server and Cloud) get featured instead. (How many people will really use
> those?)
On Oct 10, 2013 8:20 PM, "Kevin Kofler" wrote:
>
> Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:58:32AM -0400, Jens Petersen wrote:
> >> > * Fedora Workstation
> >> Will this subsume Live-Desktop.iso and Live-KDE.iso?
> >> What about other current desktop Spins?
> >> Presumably some of t
Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:58:32AM -0400, Jens Petersen wrote:
>> > * Fedora Workstation
>> Will this subsume Live-Desktop.iso and Live-KDE.iso?
>> What about other current desktop Spins?
>> Presumably some of these might have a secondary WG.
>
> Right -- one of the key th
On 10/04/2013 03:44 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Now, what was really intended by that statement that you quoted above
(and I acknowledge I'm putting words in people's mouths a bit) is that
Red Hat*may* flex its muscles a bit if the community were to do
something extremely unlikely that would be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/04/2013 11:14 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 10/04/2013 11:49 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> The main change being made here is with how we are presenting
>> *The Fedora Project* to the world. In the past, we've tried to be
>> all thing
On 10/04/2013 11:49 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
The main change being made here is with how we are presenting *The
Fedora Project* to the world. In the past, we've tried to be all
things to all people, but going forward we want to pick a few specific
areas that we will focus on (and market) part
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Mihamina RKTMB wrote:
> On 10/04/2013 02:49 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>What about Fedora Embedded? Do you plan to drop ARM support on
>>Fedora? I can't match small credit card size devices with either
>>Workstation, Server or Cloud group. Is
On 10/04/2013 02:49 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>What about Fedora Embedded? Do you plan to drop ARM support on
>>Fedora? I can't match small credit card size devices with either
>>Workstation, Server or Cloud group. Is this group list fixed or
>>could be extended and on what basis?
>>
>>
>>
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/04/2013 04:31 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> On 10/03/2013 05:42 PM, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
>> On 11.09.2013 21:31, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> Introduction
>>>
>>> Based on discussions at and around Flock, the Fedora Projec
On 10/03/2013 05:42 PM, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
On 11.09.2013 21:31, Matthew Miller wrote:
Introduction
Based on discussions at and around Flock, the Fedora Project Board has
approved a proposal for a big change in the way we put Fedora together.
Rather than presenting one Fed
On 11.09.2013 21:31, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> Introduction
>
>
> Based on discussions at and around Flock, the Fedora Project Board has
> approved a proposal for a big change in the way we put Fedora together.
> Rather than presenting one Fedora with multiple slightly-different
> in
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:58:32AM -0400, Jens Petersen wrote:
> > * Fedora Workstation
> Will this subsume Live-Desktop.iso and Live-KDE.iso?
> What about other current desktop Spins?
> Presumably some of these might have a secondary WG.
Right -- one of the key things we need to do is work on the
Hi,
On Thu, 2013-09-19 at 00:58 -0400, Jens Petersen wrote:
> ps I wasn't at Flock alas so I may have missed some of the earlier
> discussions that might already have covered some of this...
some of your questions are answered in Matthew Miller's Flock
presentation "An Architecture for a More Ag
Hello,
Two updates arising from today's FESCo meeting:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> The nomination period will be at least one month from this announcement.
The nomination period will end on Oct 14 0:00 UTC.
Membership in a Working Group is a significant investment i
I feel this is a an exciting evolution for Fedora.
At the same time of course it will be a big change,
and there could be some risk of the increased complexity
fragmenting Fedora development somewhat, but it should
FESCo to scale to support the needs of these separate
products better.
I know this
41 matches
Mail list logo
