On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:47:39AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 10/31/2012 08:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >My concern at this point is exactly that we're "slipping a week at a
> >time", rather than facing up to the*undeniable fact* that anaconda is
> >not close to being shippable. If we don't have a workable contingency
> >plan, I think the best thing to do would be to start slipping a month at
> >a time. And drop the beta-freeze restrictions, until we reach a point
> >where anaconda actually is beta quality. Other people have work they
> >could usefully be getting done, except that they have to jump through
> >these beta-freeze hoops --- which not incidentally are slowing down
> >anaconda work too. It's insane that we are wasting time debating
> >whether anaconda bugs are release blockers or beta blockers or only NTH,
> >when any honest evaluation would recognize that the whole thing hasn't
> >reached alpha quality yet, and*all* those bugs had better get fixed if
> >we don't want F18 to permanently damage the reputation of Fedora.
> >
> >You can slip a month (or two) honestly, or you can fritter it away a
> >week at a time, and ensure that as much of that time is unproductive as
> >possible. There is not a third option. (Brooks'_Mythical_Man-Month_
> >has useful things to say about this sort of scheduling trap --- anybody
> >who hasn't read it should.)
>
> Had I any say in the matter I would have strongly urged to not enter
> the beta freeze when we did. I also think it's counter-productive
> to getting things in shape, and mostly just makes a lot of people
> hate Anaconda because it's keeping the freeze going.
Yeah, I don't think it's helped, either. FWIW I voted against it, and
I voted against the schedule, because I don't think it allows us the
time to make large changes like this without the serious problems we're
seeing now.
--
Peter
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
