On 02/10/2012 04:45 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 02/09/2012 11:06 PM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Ralf Corsepius<rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
IMO, Fedora has obvious problems with its
- work-flow (Too immature SW migrates/sneaks through from Alpha/Beta to
Final)
If you feel this is the case, feel free to help improve the work-flow,
or at a minimum help write better Alpha/Beta/Final release criteria to
help us catch things you consider immature.
Let me put it this way: I am having difficulties in recalling any
Fedora release which worked for me out of the box ...
In earlier releases there for example were pulseaudio and SELinux, in
current releases it's primarily systemd, in F17 I am sure it will be
the usemore stuff, which will cause trouble.
You can go further back if you like..
NetworkManager,X, KMS,Radeon,Nouveau,etc...
But yes there is a pattern not only on a bit level but also policy wize
( we have had the tendency up to this point to implement policy's
without having any tools or process to measure the outcome of that policy ).
- management, whom seems to be driven by a "must have at any price,
no point
of return ever" policy.
I'm not sure who you're referring to as "management" here
Everybody involved to drawing strategic and tactical decisions related
to the Fedora distribution.
My point is, I feel there is a lack of "monitoring", "reporting", and
a sense of "responsibility" of the different bodies involved and of
people who are able to draw "unpleasant decisions".
To draw an arbitrary example from recent past: Ask yourself - What was
the shape of systemd in F15/F16? Has the situation been fixed in F17?
You need to be a bit more specific on what situation regarding systemd
you are referring to?
Bugs are actively being fixed and worked on for example I don't believe
we have any bug open against systemd in F15 which is not an RFE or DOC (
somewhere between 10 - 15 bugs in total ).
The state of overall migration to systemd is depended on each package
maintainer(s) and at current rate that wont be finished until F20+.
If you got some ideas how to *motivate* those maintainers to migrate to
systemd even if they would just simply package and ship the submitted
unit files many of them have received I'm all ears but unfortunately the
only way I see that finish in a reasonable time is if FESCO blocks the
relevant package from the release.
FESCO has avoided thus far to go down that path even thou it already was
clear that this was going to be an issue after the F15 release.
That said, IMO, on the technical side, Fedora urgently needs a
"calming down/lean back/settlement phase", say 2 consecutive Fedora
releases without "revolutionary features" being introduced, to revisit
re-evaluate, revert/complete "old revolutionary features".
If we wanted we could release Fedora LTS which Red Hat's could use as
bases for their RHEL which also would server as the "free" alternative
RHEL users demand for ( And our infrastructure would actually have faith
in the bits we ship and run on top of that ) and have a constant rolling
release ( Fedora/Rawhide ) as opposed to be having 2 GA releases and
Rawhide... ( or some variant of the above proposal )
In this spirit, I eg. would propose to table usrmove for F17 and to
concentrate on systemd integration and anaconda/grub2 improvements,
both topics, I perceived as the "hall of shame of F16".
Better systemd integration of services is not going to happen I can just
tell you that here and now unless fesco brings fourth the big hammer or
packagers get their act together.
The said state of systemd migration only reflects the said state of
package maintainership in the distribution...
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
