On 05/31/2017 02:22 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:46:10AM +0200, Christian Dersch wrote:
> So I'd strongly prefer a 1.4 build as a random failure @build
> infrastructure (which is not the maintainers fault), should not block
> any build to be part of a (alpha/beta/final) release.
I think ultimately we need a way to get these out of lockstep with the
main release. We should be able to build and publish Spins/Labs on
their own cycles (ideally without human intervention required from
How much use do you see of the Astronomy Spin as bootable media or its
own install? For some, this really makes sense (the desktops, the
security lab) but it seems like maybe Astronomy might be better as a
curated software set in GNOME Software?
I think of that in addition, because that makes much sense, just a lack
of time right now. But the live media are very useful, e.g. at
conferences to present it without the need to install anything. So I see
this also as some kind of marketing. Also got some nice feedback from
both amateur and professional astronomers at universities.
For building and publishing spins/labs in own cycles: I completely agree