-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 04/29/2016 03:47 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Joe Brockmeier <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On 04/28/2016 11:02 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>> I think we might benefit from having an official branding for
>>> initiatives somewhere in between — work done *in* the project, but not
>>> necessarily yet accepted into our "mainline". This would encourage
>>> innovation _within_ Fedora without causing confusion over whether
>>> something is "official".
>> 1) would this create confusion with something like the Apache Incubator,
>> which is well-defined but not well-understood outside Apache circles?
>> 2) I like the idea, but an example project might help illustrate here.
>> 3) What are the criteria for "graduating"?
> This is a very good question, same as I asked when we were talking
> about labs projects some time ago. It doesn't make any sense to try to
> work on "labs"/"incubator" project if there's no way how to graduate
> to official product/project/flavor/whatever you call it. Currently we
> have strict set of the only official flavors and it's impossible to
> graduate to one even you have everything the other have, even more, we
> tried in KDE SIG :). Or vice versa - downgrade to incubator...
At the risk of derailing this thread, KDE SIG was told that the criteria for a
new top-level Edition in Fedora was that it had to serve a new "market segment".
Plasma Edition had almost a 100% overlap with the Workstation Edition and would
have therefore been in direct competition.
If instead you built a new product *atop* Plasma, it could still be promoted.
(Off-the-cuff examples: a Fedora Home Automation Suite, Fedora TV Set-Top Box or
Fedora Cellphone using Plasma as the operating environment).
Post a Comment