On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 02:55:19AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 05:44 -0500, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 06:31 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > > Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > > The new anaconda UI and related features are more or less > > > > > entirely the > > > > > cause of the slip. > > > > > > > > This shows that those changes should not have been done, or at > > > > least not in > > > > this way. > > > > > > I think it's widely agreed by now that they could have been done > > > better, > > > the question is now exactly how we can improve the process. > > > > We have bigger issue with features that are OUT OF the process, > > not communicated at all. If you take a look on New Installer UI, > > it fits current design, it was a late as the scope was bigger > > than Anaconda team thought but it's there. > > > > But the new upgrade process - it should be standalone feature, > > we missed dracut feature, same for LVM in Anaconda (again, not > > UI), live medias etc. So most of the problems were caused not by > > proposed/accepted features but by real features we weren't aware of. > > > > How to avoid it? Honestly I don't know. > > Well, a more stringent review process for the New UI feature would > likely have identified this problem ahead of time. I think this is part of a well-needed overhaul of the feature process anyway, but yes, review earlier would have caught a lot of these details and not surprised people. See, it goes back to communication and setting expectations. :) -- David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> Manager, Installer Engineering Team Red Hat, Inc. | Westford, MA | EST5EDT -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
