On Thu, 2009-04-30 at 17:00 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > 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? There were a number of individual reports of regressions, but it wasn't until quite late in the day that we realised just how bad the new mixer was, and that something really had to be done to restore the lost functionality. There seemed to be a policy of closing bugs WONTFIX and telling people that their use case, which used to work in F-10 and now doesn't, is not appropriate for Fedora. That seems to include my own report of "I want to be able to turn my volume up past 80%", as far as I can tell. That approach to bugs managed to hide the problem for a little while, which meant that we (FESCo) didn't back out the feature in good time and just revert to the old mixer, as we probably should have done. -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse@xxxxxxxxx Intel Corporation -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
