On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 08:26:40AM -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> I think this was the plan all along, it was just that the
> groups landed late in the F21 cycle and it was too late to remove
> @gnome-desktop at that point without potentially breaking other spins
> that were using it.
But then doesn't that just pass the problem off to the spins still
using @gnome-desktop, and users that installed prior to F21? I guess
that is a much smaller subset of users that will face the upgrade
problem, though, so you're right, this is probably a better approach.
(It's also kind of nice to have a separation between the GNOME
packages, and "extra" packages, but I can live without that....)
From a high-level conceptual standpoint, I like the idea of
@fedora-workstation including (e.g. being built on) @gnome-desktop, but
being separate and additive. That reinforces the idea that the editions
aren't merely upstream tech showcases which we are arbitrarily
elevating over other possiblities. They're meant to be Fedora-focused
marketing tools, in the complete sense of marketing — not just the part
about ad copy and swag, but a whole deal where we look at market
opportunities and try to build something that will fill them.
But, that shouldn't get in the way doing what works best pragmatically
at this level. :)
Fedora Project Leader