-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
| | If this is am open discussion about the FC4 schedule. I would | personally prefer to see a SLOW release cycle so the non-technical | issues, the community facing policy/organizational issues can finally | get some needed high priority allocation from inside the fenceline. |
Definitely. There is much that needs to be formalised here.
I for one am very disappointed that I have zero control pushing my own agenda within Fedora. I have four outstanding bugs and enhancements with patches (135657, 135659, 135660, 120635) which are completely at the whim RH as to when they may apply them, if ever.
| In terms of what is important in the long term health of fedora as a | community project and not just a collection of code.. time needs to be | made by the primaries inside Red Hat to deal the issues of how | community is actually going to be invited and encouraged to be | invovled beyond upstream component developers. Pushing a quick fc4 | schedule is NOT going to make it easier to deal with any community | contributor/leadership issues... real or imagined, outstanding or | looming. |
Indeed. A quick push just means there's even less time to lobby for changes that have already been deferred because you were all too busy getting out FC3.
We already see that existing RH resources are struggling to be reactive to the situation. If you cannot open this project up along the lines of other large open projects, whereby I can influence the final product, then I will seriously consider participating elsewhere.
Alan
On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 14:38 +1100, Alan Milligan wrote:
I for one am very disappointed that I have zero control pushing my own agenda within Fedora. I have four outstanding bugs and enhancements with patches (135657, 135659, 135660, 120635) which are completely at the whim RH as to when they may apply them, if ever.
Those patches are only two weeks old - given that there's no release for at least a few months, I wouldn't be concerned that they aren't applied.
It's not at the whim of Red Hat, btw. It's up to Mihai, Adrian, and Jeff, who no doubt appreciate the help.
There's a bugzilla upgrade in the works which will add the "patch" flag as with gnome.org bugzilla, then we can query for all bugs with unapplied patches and track that, which will be useful.
With externally-maintained packages, whether to apply a patch will be at the whim of the external package owner. At least I would expect there's never going to be any process for patches other than maintainer review. That's afaik how GNOME or Debian or the kernel works.
Indeed. A quick push just means there's even less time to lobby for changes that have already been deferred because you were all too busy getting out FC3.
I bet if you charted bugzilla, more fixes and patches go in during the bustle of getting the release out, toward the end of the process. At the beginning of a release people tend to ignore bugzilla and work on coding new stuff.
If you aren't familiar with the time based release process, here is a still-fairly-accurate summary of how GNOME works: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-hackers/2002-June/msg00041.html
The GNOME process was modeled after the Red Hat Linux process in large part, so it isn't surprising that it's also used by Fedora.
Havoc
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 02:38:15PM +1100, Alan Milligan wrote:
I for one am very disappointed that I have zero control pushing my own agenda within Fedora. I have four outstanding bugs and enhancements with patches (135657, 135659, 135660, 120635) which are completely at the whim RH as to when they may apply them, if ever.
I work for the company and I can't get up2date bugs fixed, so don't think its a magical cure 8(
devel@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
Alan Cox -
Alan Milligan -
Havoc Pennington