On Friday, August 13, 2010 03:10:46 am Kevin Kofler wrote: > I wrote: > > But FWIW, when it comes to KDE in particular, the whole thing is moot or > > soon to be moot anyway because parts of KDE are now being redefined as > > "critical path", resulting in even more annoying update policies, even > > though there was clear consensus in KDE SIG that such policies are > > neither necessary for nor of any benefit to KDE. FESCo just asked us to > > come up with a list of critical KDE packages and shut up. So we did. (My > > proposal to submit an empty list was voted down in KDE SIG on the > > grounds of being against the spirit of what FESCo asked of us, even > > though it did get some support due to our objections to the critical > > path process as a whole.) We (KDE SIG) have been more or less forced to > > participate in a process most of us (and me in particular) do not agree > > with and consider outright harmful. > > PS: > > 1. The critical path update rules (and thus also the clause in the general > update rules which references them) were initially defined as requiring > only 1 proventester to approve. (This was left somewhat vague in the > actual policy, but 1 proventester was what was mentioned in all the > discussion inside FESCo.) This was modified to 1 proventester + 1 other > tester to match existing practice for freezes (the Critical Path Policy > implemented as part of No Frozen Rawhide). FESCo never actually voted to > approve that change, it was single-handedly made in the wiki by one > person. This makes this policy much more of a PITA than it could have > been. It also shows that we aren't even trusting PROVEN testers to > reliably test a package! This is really ridiculous! > > 2. FESCo also rejected an amendment I suggested to make sure that the > proventesters group should include at least one member of each of the main > 4 desktops' SIGs. And in fact, no KDE SIG member was included in the > initial proventesters seed, despite Rex Dieter: > (i) having applied WEEKS before the proventesters group was seeded and > (ii) having YEARS of experience with approving freeze overrides, as he had > been processing freeze override requests all over the years in the old rel- > eng-Trac-ticket-based process. > This really hurts the abilities of SIGs to self-organize, instead promoting > a kind of centralized power distribution which just does not scale to our > evergrowing distribution. If you want KDE to be considered critical path, > you also have to allow KDE people to approve critical path packages. (In > fact, I think we actually need much more than one KDE proventester in the > long run.) And likewise for XFCE and LXDE. Indeed - we need at least two proventesters for our purposes. And if others don't trust our testing - provide Plasma Desktop testers for us ;-) Or let exchange proventesters, we can test Desktop spin, you can test Plasma Desktop spin - for objectivity. But we desperetely need proventesters once we're on the list. I agreed to provide correct critical path list for Plasma Desktop as I think it's really good idea but current situation is really very sad :( And as I remember noone asked if we want to update the list after the policy was set - I would vote against including Plasma Desktop in this kind implementation of critical pathset. But I shut down - my fault I missed FESCo elections deadline, next time ;-) Jaroslav > IMHO, FESCo should be abolished, Fedora needs to be ruled by the SIGs! > > Kevin Kofler -- Jaroslav Řezník <jreznik@xxxxxxxxxx> Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno Office: +420 532 294 275 Mobile: +420 602 797 774 Red Hat, Inc. http://cz.redhat.com/ -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
