On Mon, 23.08.10 16:17, Matthew Miller (mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > Oh, I have found a later meeting, from August 3rd. There, the comments > (after a brief discussion o updating the wiki): > > 20:05:40 <nirik> What do folks think on systemd? still too early to tell > if it will be ready for f14? (I know it's not had that much > testing yet). > 20:06:05 <adamw> i think it would be useful to look at alpha feedback on > that > 20:06:09 <cebbert> is it still trying to dictate how the kernel gets > packaged? > [... different-topic python packaging comment elided ... ] > 20:06:21 <notting> cebbert: have you filed a bug? Yes, did this happen? I am not aware of any issue. I exchanged a couple of mails with Dave a couple of days ago and to my knowledge we settled everything that was left to discuss? > [... different-topic python packaging comment elided ... ] > 20:06:52 <dmalcolm> nirik: given that as it stands it's less featureful > that ubuntu's version of the same, it's debatable that it's now a > "feature" I am not sure where this comes from, but well, there is not really much truth in it. > 20:07:05 <dmalcolm> nirik: hence F15, I think > 20:07:11 <mclasen> nirik/adamw: I know lennart was working on a bugfix > release of systemd todasy > 20:07:45 <nirik> dmalcolm: yeah, no shame in moving it out a release... > 20:07:49 <adamw> yeah, we're going to need one to fix the 100% CPU usage bug > at a minimum. This all has been fixed, and strictly speaking this was and still is a a known issue in X which doesn't properly handle it if it opens a tty at the same time as a getty. It's a race. We now avoid the race by making sure we never start the getty and X on the same terminal, but one could argue that's just taping over the real issue. This is all old stuff that was fixed very quickly, and I think adamw will ahgree with me that all issues we found for the f14 alpha release were really quickly dealt with and fixed. > Which echos what I was saying earlier -- it's not a failure if systemd > doesn't make F14. It simply echoes that new software isn't perfect. And that we fixed all issues quickly. > I'm not quoting all of this to argue, but to bring it to your attention if > you haven't seen already. Having a discussion at this point is absolutely > appropriate if you want to get systemd in by default. Or if not at this > point, as feedback from the alpha release starts coming in. Well, you are building a case out of bugs that have been fixed weeks ago. > I understand your desire to get your code out there in the real world. But > Fedora really can't afford to have a marketing-disaster release right > now. Ah, it can't? When can it? Neither do I see a marketing desaster looming anywhere nor do I see any relation to "not now". > Because this is a far-reaching change to a core service, any problems people > encounter will be amplified -- and amplified *way more* than my little > complaints. I want to avoid that. Well, there's a much more constructive way in doing that instead of going on with the discussion here: test the alpha. File bugs. You already have been very successful with that, so please go on. Anyway, I won't reply to this discussion anymore. I am happy to reinvestigate this whole issue again if we run into real trouble, but so far you are "seeing patterns" where no patterns are and from my perspective everything is working out very well so far. Thanks, Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
