Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Not only did you back the idea, you came fairly close to writing a
spec for it. I don't know what side of the bed you got up on this
morning, but I suggest you try the other one.
This was a *LONG* time ago, long before the current Fedora package
process. Subsequent to me writing those suggestions, your idea of
fedora-submit and desired method of software submission turned out to be
missing the point entirely.
Reading through the mail archives and what you state on the
fedora-submit page, you seem to have wanted a fire-and-forget tool for
submitting software to Fedora, both for initial submission and further
updates. Fedora simply did NOT want to do it this way.
(I am unable to find the post in the mail archive now, but I vaguely
recall you wanting a "contrib" style upload system where you could
submit RPMS for Fedora to directly consume. If my memory has properly
attributed this to your desires for Fedora, then this was furthermore
crack.)
Fedora has a review process that has allowed the project to scale in a
responsible manner. Dozens of Reviewer/contributors have been promoted
as they did work over time. THOUSANDS of packages have been approved.
The backlog of the review queue has shrank to a manageable level,
indicating that the process has been working.
The current incarnation of this process uses Bugzilla during review, and
CVS there-after for package updating by the maintainer. This process
has done a tremendous job of growing Fedora's software catalog. Further
improvement is on-going, with better tools and processes to reduce
maintainer and process overhead.
Your fedora-submit tool tried to optimize a problem that wasn't very
problematic. We simply did not agree with your desired process of
software submission.
In any case, please remove statements from your page like, "It will ship
with a future release of Fedora Core." and my explicit endorsement of
your tool, because they are simply not true.
The fundamental structural problem fedora-submit would address is still
present and still pressing. Fedora's failure to address it effectively
is one of two big reasons why, after more than ten years as a loyal Fedora
user and developer, I'm being forced to the conclusion that I must
migrate to another distribution where the maintainers are less of an
inward-looking circle-jerk.
You claim that Fedora's submission process even today is a failure. To
date you have never even TRIED to submit a package to Fedora or to
maintain a package here.
Time is running out for you. Ubuntu is eating your lunch. Even
Linspire looks smarter and fresher than Fedora these days. Your
failure to adapt implies merely a system-administration inconvenience
for me, but it's going to be a disaster for you.
Ubuntu already has eaten our lunch in the aftermath of Red Hat's past
mistakes in community relationship in the 2003 timeframe. Red Hat was
too focused on doing the right thing (100% FOSS software development),
and not enough on community outreach (simply talking to the community).
Since then great improvements have been happening in the Fedora
Project, and even larger improvements are coming with the Fedora merge[1].
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061103073628401
An astute observer recognizes that Fedora is doing the right thing for
the long-term success of FOSS.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/world-domination/world-domination-201.html
(Offtopic) By the way, ATI driver is not a resolved issue for FOSS. The
reverse engineered drivers with 3D support are only for older series of
cards. Most newer cards are poorly supported, and most users still rely
on ATI's proprietary, GPL violating fglrx drivers.
Warren Togami
wtogami@xxxxxxxxxx
[1]
http://lwn.net/Articles/214925/
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/MergeCoreAndExtras
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
