On Thu, 22.07.10 11:00, Matthew Miller (mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 04:18:34PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > Fedora. Now, who's right? It's unlikely that we can figure that out for > > sure, given that Fedora is a lot of things to a lot of people, so our > > two opposite opinions even out in a zero sum game. > > Oh, if we only had a committee that would take steering decisions in the > > area of engineering! [1] > > Please read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy/Acceptance. > > Acceptance by FESCo is a sanity check, presumed in most cases to be a > formality, to ensure that new features compliment Fedora's guidelines and > is manageable, prior to publicizing as officially targeted for the next > release. > > It is not, in fact, an endorsement in the area of engineering. Feature > approval is a a way of saying: okay, that looks worth trying. But it may > turn out that there are problems not anticipated in the initial proposal, > once the feature has wider exposure. That's not a *problem* -- it's part of > the process. What was discussed by FESCO was whether we should make it the default in F14. And FESCO said yes. As usually, should later on during development of F14 turn out that this actually doesn't work, then we can switch back to Upstart. From the very beginning we have put together a plan how to accomplish this best, in this event. This is in fact not any different as with any other feature accepted by FESCO. Always, there's a plan B delcared which is executed when the feature turns out not to work. Make of this what you want, but you can read of this at least one thing: I am not the only one who things that systemd is very much *in* focus of fedora, and is good thing to make the default. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
