On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 12:49:30PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 13:39 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:34:26 -0700 >> Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> ...snip... >> >> > Sure, and I was always happy to write in GNOME and KDE versions as >> > 'Features' when writing release blurbs for Mandriva. But that's just >> > pure PR. PR is not all our feature process does - it comes with all >> > this bureaucracy, intended for dealing with experimental stuff which >> > may turn out to have been a bad idea, attached to it, it's _not_ a >> > pure PR exercise. Which leads to the absurdity we have here, the >> > suggestion that the GNOME 2.28 'feature' should be 'dropped' for >> > Fedora 12 (does anyone really think we're going to ship it with GNOME >> > 2.26?) >> >> It wasn't a suggestion of that, it was our feature wrangler saying: >> hey, check these features because they are not showing 100%. >> >> Please see: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy >> >> Do we need to change some policy there? > >Er, the _topic_ of this thread is "Fedora 12 Features Proposed for >Removal". The email doesn't say anything about 'if you fix this stuff >before the meeting it'll be fine' (though that may be the actual case), >and the amount of notice given is a princely two days, which isn't that >long for anyone to make changes. The way things are worded are clearly >"We're going to drop these features", not "please check this, okay? >Please? Thanks!" No, it's worded perfectly. The Feature Wrangler is PROPOSING to FESCo that we drop these Features. It's a proposal, it's not a clear intention of dropping them at all. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
