On 8 November 2012 10:06, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/08/2012 04:37 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 04:32:29PM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: >> >>> Or if I rephrase why could not the community continue to use >>> Anaconda in it's form that it existed in F17 until the "new >>> installer" was *completly* done? >> >> Because nobody in the community did the work to make the F17 Anaconda >> work in F18? >> > > This also touches on "Who's responsible for an feature" > > Just recently FESCO decided *for* Kay that he was responsible to ensure the > migration related docs and what not kept working for the name change of > configuration files that takes place in systemd ( which was not even a > feature ) Applying the same logic here the Anaconda developers themselves > would have been responsible keeping the "old code" working until the new one > was ready to completely replace it. > Your problem is that you are assuming a lot of things without actually doing any legwork to find out what anaconda does. Anaconda does a lot of probing of hardware which changes when kernels change. Anaconda requires changes when dracut changes APIs. Every release requires changes in what is blacklisted and what is not blacklisted. It requires dealing with the usual multiple changes in python apis and such. It has other changes due to EFI or secure boot or other features. None of them are trivial and doing them in parallel is usually not possible. -- Stephen J Smoogen. "Don't derail a useful feature for the 99% because you're not in it." Linus Torvalds "Years ago my mother used to say to me,... Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me." —James Stewart as Elwood P. Dowd -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
