----- Original Message -----
From: "Miloslav Trmač" <mitr(a)redhat.com>
To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 9:41:06 PM
Subject: Re: F23 Self Contained Change: Netizen Spin
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 09:50:44AM -0600, Pete Travis wrote:
> > A spin is a big effort with many interoperating packages and coordination
> > with other teams (primarily releng, but you should also seek guidance
> > from
> > QA). It qualifies as a System Wide Change.
> Especially if this particular spin is asking for significant deviation
> from our standard config (something I'm unclear about -- see Spins list
> discussion). In that case, this definitely should be considered as
On this particular procedural point, I think _all_ spins should be considered
system-wide due to the required involvement of rel-eng, council and others;
they are by no means “self-contained” in the sense that nobody else needs to
help with getting them done.
The question whether Spins need to be System-wide or Self-contained Changes has been
raised on the last FESCo meeting and the conclusion was to have Spins as Self-contained.
However every request for a Spin goes to FESCo for a review. So, FESCo has the opportunity
to turn a specific Spin requests to a System-wide change if they consider so.
And generally I agree with the concern raised on the spins list
following) that the spin description can, at least by a quick read without
reading the actual kickstart, likely to be misunderstood to deliver more
than it actually does. For example, just including a tor package by no means
guarantees privacy (e.g. it does nothing about all the ways Fedora leaks
information about being Fedora).
devel mailing list
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Platform Program Manager
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic