Adam Williamson (awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > I never said it was good. I said it was less bad than EXPECTING PEOPLE > TO TELEPATHICALLY DISCOVER THE EXISTENCE OF alsamixer. Well, I'm assuming it would be documented in the same way you'd document 'install this package and twiddle this switch'; once you're to that point of writing up a 'fix this' cookbook, the specifics are less relevant. > If other people had spent time contributing to this process while I was > busy as fuck hacking on two different packages, tracking down patches, > and simultaneously working with Lennart and a dozen end users to > generate and track useful bug reports on the volume issues, maybe it > would have gone faster. I am terribly terribly sorry that I wasn't quite > able to meet your schedule while I was working thirteen hours a day on > this issue. The point isn't the amount of work going in, or anything like that; it's more the fact that the *process* to start the change was started this late. That indicates a real issue with the process; we've got feature pages that define what we're trying to implement, and contingency plans to enact if they don't work. Why did we miss the deadline to enact this here? Was the feature page not complete enough as to what was required? Was the time too short between alpha/beta/preview? Were the reports just late? It'd be the same response if we were changing the artwork now, or attempting to do the empathy/pidgin flop at this stage, etc. It's just rather late to be making any changes of this sort, regardless of the work being done. Bill -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
