Bill Nottingham schrieb: > Thorsten Leemhuis (fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: >> == Fedora Project Board == >> * it's not that much present -- we know it exists, but that's often all. >> * seems to meet quite seldom and it's hard to see what it does or if >> there even is progress somewhere > Well, we have public minutes. What other things do you think the board > should be doing? A schedule page in the wiki? That's requested for sub-projects like Extras iirc, but there is no Schedule for the Board itself (and non for Core, too). > Realistically, the board does not have *direct* resources where it > can by itself implement things other than policy. Well, it jumped in the Xorg 7.1 for FC5 discussion. I liked that. I could also ask around now and then "what should the board handle?" And i could ask the subproject if they need help. >> quite slow. And not only that, also the infrastructure of Fedora for the >> community (new VCS, let community help in Core, ...) seems to go forward >> quite slowly (e.g. nearly nothing). > We're working on that. FC6 and associated releases got in the way > of doing much work in this area. I know, but it still far from perfect. >> The Live-CD is a good example for the problems -- how long are we >> working on it now without a real result? Much to long! > So, counter-argument here. Most all the work for LiveCDs is being done > by the non-RH community. If the community has not been able to progress > this to a 'real result', what is that saying? IMHO it says that the task was to big for the community . A result might have long finished if one RH employee would have helped getting the project started and up to the first real release. Then a community might exist by then that can take the project it further. > I would like to get to > the point where progress can be made in areas without direct RH involvement. I'd like to see more us working closely together. Currently Fedora often still is a bit like Core and Extras -- RH is working here, the community there, but more side-by-side and not so much together. >> Readahead improvements like >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156442 linger >> around without much process for ages. 73 of 850 files in readahed.early >> and 441 of 3757 files in readahead.later don't even exist on FC7. >> Readahead.later should run as last app in the init process, but doesn't >> as there are several other initscripts that run at level 99 (some of >> them are started after readahead later). There was much talk about a new >> init system but nothing real came out of it (and Ubuntu got all the >> credits for their upstart in between). Starting some jobs in parallel/or >> while the log-in screen is shown was in the discussion and even in >> testing once, but seems to have vanished again (Opensuse does something >> like that these days iirc). And RHGB still starts once, ends, and a new >> X is fireed of for the real session :-/. Takes some more time again. > I should do some comparisons again, but I do believe that FC6 bootup > is a good 10-20% faster than a similar bootup from FC2/FC3. It's not > particularly revolutionary, but we do make some progress. I did not try, but Suse and Ubuntu both seem to start even quicker these days. > That being said, there are always more ideas than there is time. Sure, that's true... >> content." (quote from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives ). Well, >> that's true in some parts of Fedora (nearly always latest KDE, major >> kernel updates, Gnome Updates to 2.x.0 to 2.x.[0-9], lot's of updates in >> Extras-Land), but fail in other areas (no gutenprint in FC6 [a lot of >> printers are not supported due to that], only Firefox 1.5[Ubuntu 6.10 >> shipped two days after FC6 and has Firefox 2.0 and gutenprint] and no >> sign of a update in Core to FF 2.0, > How is breaking all the users extensions a *good* thing? FF 2.0 has > landed in rawhide, and yes, it does browse. But now extensions like > mugshot or adblock, etc. no longer work. I'm not saying we need FF 2 as a official update now. Get it out in one or two months when most extensions are fixed. Or put it in a special repo (as aiglx in FC5) and maintain it there for those interested. >> no X.org-Update to 7.1 [even after >> the proprietary drivers where able to handle it; owners of G965 hardware >> were left out in the cold without Support in Fedora due to this as the >> driver for that popular hardware depends on/is shipped in Xorg 7.1], > They're not left out - it's in Fedora Core 6. Sure, now there is something. But such Hardware is in the wild since September already. So there was a one month gap where you had no chance of running a stable release on your hardware. That's what I dislike (one month might be okay, but there were situtations in the past where it were two, three or even more months). > And the driver *still* > isn't fully baked (I know, I've got a i965 box on my desk.) Was not that bad on my desk... Well, that's not important here > I'd prefer > not to give users of a stable release a driver that only starts X correctly > once or twice per boot. Sure. But I also prefer to give them drivers if there are some. >> * Gnome and Firefox as a lot of users are interested to run the latest >> version of those packages (sure, that's often stupid, but that's how it is) > So, it is better to constantly backport features to existing releases > rather than work on pushing the next release forward? That's the tradeoff > you're suggesting here. The question is: where to draw the line. I'd like to see FF 2.0 or X.org updates in stable release *after * they were tested in devel and *only* if they seem to work properly and if they are of interest fo lof of uesrs. >> * X.org and gutenprint, as hardware support is crucial -- that sucks >> even more as out hardware support in other areas of Fedora is quite good >> as kernel and packages like sane get updates to new upstream version >> regularly > I call bullshit on this. X.org is always the latest release available > at the time the distro is frozen, and we've been working hard to get new > features and better hardware support into it. All the autoconfiguration > work in FC6? Done by Red Hat, and I do believe available in Fedora Core > first. Many thx for that. >> Why don't we have a public roadmap? That might give community members >> at least a chance to get interested in topics and start helping getting >> them done. > So, for many cases, it's follow-the-roadmap-for-the-upstream-project. > We can do better here, e.g. with a Roadmap for Fedora-Special things -- new init-system, better RHGB, stuff like that > but, for example, there's a lot that's just > 'whatever GNOME ships.' Sure. >> == Fedora Extras == > ... >> * we can't do anything we'd like to do; I hope we can get a bit more >> support from RH in the future > Huh? I got a bit more into detail in my mail to mether. CU thl _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
