Jeff Spaleta wrote:
2008/1/25 Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx>:
This is not actually true. In fact, there is a lot of what RHEL does
where it takes queues from what Fedora does. Perhaps this isn't very
well communicated, but to state that as Fedora leadership you have no
input/control into what RHEL does is pretty false.
I have no...control. I've got input, yes.. but not control. Big
difference. Of course there is a measure of alignment, since there is
engineering resources that Red Hat makes available that crosses the
fenceline. And I know that people who straddle that fence line are
making a damn important effort to make the alignment better over time,
to the benefit of everyone.
But at the same time, everyone out here firmly planted in Fedora land
who stands on tippy-toe to see over into the RHEL side of things,
needs to understand that to effectively drive changes in how Fedora
and RHEL interface requires some mutual benefit arguments.
Something I'm not currently seeing a lot of in how externals are
approaching the conversation.
Which is why I want to go to the Summit, grab a few RHEL customer
reps, put their head in a vice, and squeeze out some ideas from their
perspective to add to my Fedora roadmap smoothie.
It's not so much a question of what goes into RHEL, but the feasibility
of converting whatever that might be back into fedora updates after the
fact, something that might not be possible to know until the time comes
unless someone wants to try FC6->RHEL5 at this point. It might go more
smoothly if it could be planned that way, though.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
