On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:49:00AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > On 11/09/2012 09:35 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:13:32AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > >> > >>As far as Anaconda reverted in the future, I'm confused as to > >>when/where this became a requirement. > >> > >I think he's saying this because: > > > >1) Features have a section for contingency plans. > >2) In this particular case, we're slipping schedule because the NewUI > > feature has a point where there stopped being a contingency plan. We > > passed that point before being aware of all of these issues that need to > > be fixed in order to release Fedora. > > > >Being stricter about having viable contingency plans for features like > >this (ones that require coordination and can potentially block us if they > >aren't done/done correctly) is one possible way to address this type of > >situation in the future. > > > >Others are to alter the "time-based" release philosophy for certain > >features (We are going to have Feature X in Fedora 19. If it isn't ready, > >we're going to slip the release date until it is done.) To only let in > >a feature with no contingency plan only when it is code complete and can be > >evaluated outside of the Fedora tree first (anaconda devs state that they do > >not actually have the manpower to implement this style of solution). > > > >-Toshio > > > >- Note: I considered adding "have a longer release cycle" to the list of > > alternatives but it's not clear that we wouldn't still get into this > > situation (FESCo/releng/QA finding out at beta freeze that Feature X lacks > > certain capabilities that are considered essential while the team > > responsible for the feature had considered that it was something that > > could safely be put off until the next release. Being unable to revert > > the feature at that point and so having to code the missing capabilities > > on a rushed schedule at that point.) > > > > > > > > In that context the plan would have had to be do all the "bring the > code base forward into the next Fedora environment" work twice. > Correct. But while this is a problem for the anaconda team, it may be the least-bad for Fedora overall. Then again, there might be an alternative that is even better. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpmUPLszgwf7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
