On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:55:22 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > - Revoke sponsorship in the event that the person refuses to follow > > > rules, and deal with that persons leftover packages. > > > > The second part is new to me. Leftover packages would be orphaned. > > Sure, but there might be open bugs to close, other packages that depend > on those packages that a new maintainer should be found for, binary > rpms to remove from repositories, etc. Now it's getting interesting. Being a sponsor has never before implied that you have to fix orphans or take over packages when a sponsored person leaves the project or is AWOL. With such a requirement, the sponsorship system would be too burdensome and too much of a risk. > > > > * unclear role of FESCo, not enough steering -- instead: the drive > > > > that "you don't need to be in FESCo to get something done", > > > > > > What items do you think need addressing? > > > > Guiding the community to prepare for Fedora 7. The contributor > > community needs a roadmap. There are 1129 fc6 packages (based on > > their src.rpm name) in the devel tree, while Core has reached test2 > > already. The upgradecheck report lists several invalid upgrade paths. > > The broken deps report lists other issues. The FE7Target tracker > > lists even more issues. And I guarantee, more issues are undiscovered. > > Of course. I attempted to clean up the EVR and broken dependency issues > a while back and made some progress on it, but I have been trying to > look at core merge reviews lately instead of working more on that. > I found that often you could find a solution to the issue, report a bug > on it (with patch or offer to fix it) and the maintainer would happily > accept it. > > What do you see such a roadmap containing? Points that give the impression that there is the desire to have a product ready when Fedora 7 will be released. When to have packages rebuilt and ready, whether and when there will be any sort of freeze (especially with regard to ABI and API breakage), "last resort"/"last minutes" procedures for fixing packages where package owners have not met the deadline. I see Matt Domsch' build failure report, I see the complicated and lengthy AWOL procedure, I see that test2 is close, but Extras 7 is broken in many areas, I see ACLs which lock down packages in CVS, and all that would benefit from plans on how to bring Extras 7 in shape in time. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
