On 04/12/2011 04:01 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> The process is not the product.
> Exactly, and I don't see anyone complaining about the product - just
> wondering if some number of months could be shaved off the process.
Fixing the timing of release is something we get from getting the
process into the right place. And not the other way around. There seems
to be a feeling of 'do whatever' to get packages out faster. And thats
where I have an issue with things. Doing the right thing, would mean we
get packages in the right state out faster. The 'right state' bit is not
really optional, imho.
>> Exactly, which is where the idea of 'ownership' comes through.
> So far it isn't clear where the months of process can accumulate. If it
There are many things, eg. not having the right amount of kit in the
same place is a bottleneck. Not being able to run the right sort of
tests automatically is another. Upstream not releasing packages in time
is yet another. There are plenty of things that are harder to solve. On
the other hand, there are things that we can do stuff about : find and
promote people who have expertise in specific functionality to help come
together and solve the not-enough-eyes issues. And being able to do that
within a model that also promotes the persons visibility in the
community and therefore have some level of a trust build up in the peer
group, is a clear win!
And to be clear, its not about expertise with rpm or packaging as a
whole, its expertise in a functional set that is more relevant.
Regards,
- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
