On 02/06/2017 08:38 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 09:12:26PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: >>> * Why is it not proposed for F26 (now the deadline is over, but IMHO it >>> should get in)? >> >> Since the plan has always been (as that page shows) to get it into F25, >> which would not make it a F26 change. > > There's a big Change process question here which I think FESCo should > resolve. If a Change does not meet the deadline, should it be released > as an update, automatically retargetted for the next release, or need > to be re-proposed? I think probably all answers of these possibilities > are appropriate for some cases; maybe we should make "if you didn't > make the deadlines, please run past fesco for what to do next" part of > the process. This is supposed to be part of the original proposal, specifically the contingency mechanism. In this Change Proposal, that reads: "Contingency mechanism: Mesa remains as the system libGL implementation; libglvnd is rebuilt to filter out the Provides for the library so as not to conflict." With my FESCo hat on, I'd read that as "Mesa is the libGL implementation for the life of F25, but libglvnd is made available in a non-conflicting location for testing purposes". In this case, the appropriate thing was for the system default to be left untouched until Fedora 26. The Contingency Mechanism is meant to describe what will happen for Fedora 25's entire lifetime. If the Change Owners had intended a late landing, that should have been written there clearly so that FESCo could have made a ruling with that in mind. Perhaps we need to provide some more clear guidance in the comments for the Contingency section on the template to avoid this in the future.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
