[Libosinfo] Fwd: [PATCH 4/4] gnome: Add info about 3.10

[Fabiano Fidencio]

Zeeshan,

On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 17:23 +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
> 
> That is an even more unlikely scenerio. Talk to the people involved a
> bit and you'll realize this:
> 
> <zeenix> [16:48:51] is there any intentions still to do installer for gnome?
> <zeenix> [16:49:52] hughsie: poettering: owen: ^
> <zeenix> [16:50:19] the installer question, not ramcq's kudos :)
> <hughsie> [16:50:44] zeenix, not by me, mclasen would kill me
> <mclasen> [16:51:23] zeenix: what would the installer do ?
> <zeenix> [17:00:51] mclasen: install gnome? :)
> <zeenix> [17:01:09] i guess the answer is 'no' then
> <ebassi> [17:12:12] zeenix: I guess the actual question would be: what
> does "install gnome" mean?
> <mclasen> [17:15:20] wget
> http://build.gnome.org/ostree/buildmaster/images/z/current/gnome-ostree-x86_64-runtime.qcow2.gz
> ?
> <zeenix> [17:20:39] ebassi: i don't know. I'm just curious
> 
> > Wouldn't we want to use the http://gnome.org/3.10 id for that rather than
> > having something else use that?
> 
> As I've been trying to explain, this is unlikely to happen in the
> first place. *If* it happens, a bit of weird IDs are nothing to be
> concerned or worried about.
> 
> >> So your whole point is now
> >> mute as I already made changes to my patches that do take this
> >> difference in account as much as it needs to be right now.
> >
> > My initial point still stands, it's just weird to have http://gnome.org/3.6
> > be a fedora-based live cd,
> 
> A very unlikely weirdness in future is fine by me and I'd choose that
> over breaking the ID scheme already for it.
> 

Considering mclasen's opinion, I'd say, go ahead for it.
ACK!

Best Regards,
--
Fabiano Fidêncio