On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 20:09:12 +0200 christoph.wickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Christoph Wickert) wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 12:38 -0400 schrieb Bill Nottingham: > > Kevin Kofler (kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx) said: > > > Bill Nottingham <notting <at> redhat.com> writes: > > > > There are descriptions which are translated as well.... > > > > > > Well, leave it blank, leave it in English (untranslated), put > > > just a URL for the upstream web page as the description > > > > ... or, actually follow the string freeze, and the string freeze > > break policy. > > The first constructive statement I hear from a FeSCo member. In fact > you are the _only_ FeSCo member who responded to my mail at all. Sorry, I can't speak for the rest of the FESCo members, but I have been really busy with my regular job and also I have been mostly in agreement with the posts by Bill. To expect everyone to respond to a post on a busy list in under 24 hours can be a bit much. > > * Package Reviews (were not fully done) > > But that's not my fault I guess. No it's not. I feel partially to blame, as I looked at those reviews and they looked to be in progress, but it looks like no one is formally reviewing them after all. ;( > > * Comps: new group with id "lxde-desktop", name "LXDE"... > > o mandatory: lxde-common, lxpanel, openbox, pcmanfm > > o default: gpicview, leafpad, lxappearance, lxtask, > > lxterminal, obconf, xarchiver ... (wasn't done) > > Wasn't done because > * of the missing reviews > * I expected someone from FeSCo to give me a go. A go for what? Adding the comps group? ...snipp... > Obviously the only one who was at least a little informed is nirik, > he's also the only one who apologized for "the lack of communication" > in a conversation we had yesterday. Yes, and I am sad there was a lack of communication, and I hope things can be done better next time around. > But nirik is wrong too: Those LXDE > packages that are already in Fedora are not there because they have > been forever but because they were part of my feature (lxtask, > lxterminal, lxlauncher, ...). I'm not sure I understand this sentence... ? Yes, there are other lxde packages that have passed review and are in, I understand that. > So the decision was made under the assumption that _none_ of the LXDE > packages has ever passed a review. How can somebody who has read the > feature page claim that? Why did nobody answer him back? No, I never claimed that. I claimed that because 2 of them are missing then the feature must wait. Is that incorrect? > Summing it all up: My outrage is because > * nobody contacted my to ask me for status or to tell me the > feature was dropped. Nobody contacted me at all. I am very sorry for that. ;( > * the wiki says [1]: "The feature owner is responsible for > watching any owned pages for state changes, using the wiki > watch feature." That's what I did, nevertheless I did not get > notified. That needs to be changed/fixed. The wiki page watch is not sufficent here I don't think. > * I think I did everything I could to rescue my feature. I > someone contacted me I would have responded. > * the decision was made by people who obviously did not read the > feature page and have no interest in the feature. If somebody > has not read the page he should not speak up on that topic or > decide about it, and if he has further question he should ask. I don't understand this. I like the feature, I was using it on my phone for a while. it's a nice DE. I would love to see it in Fedora. It was not testable by Beta, so it shouldn't be advertised as a feature this time. I'm sorry that that is due to communication problems. ;( I find it very unfortunate. It's after string freeze, but you can get an exception for that: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/StringFreezePolicy So, you can get things in place, and we can advertise this as a Feature for F11. > * no FeSCo member except from Bill reacted to my previous mails. Sorry. > Once again: I accept that my feature is delayed, but I can not accept > the way it was done. > > Regards, > Christoph kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
