On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 11:20 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > From what you say above, it sounds like the ConsoleKit feature should be > > declared incomplete, and we should be reverting it unless the feature > > owners finish the job. > > If this is the case, then we would only have had ConsoleKit in F-11... > > At the time the issue happened, there was no feature process, but I > can't see how it would have changed anything. A feature process cannot > prevent lack of planning, focus on gnome, lack of integration with > existing frameworks and lack of consideration for alternative setups, I think that's a fundamental part of what the feature process _should_ be doing. The whole point of the feature process, as I see it, is about precisely the _planning_ you say we lack. Otherwise, we're just be throwing new stuff in willy-nilly and just writing it up in the release notes after the fact. In this case, there seems to have been a disagreement about _how_ the other display managers should be fixed. Regardless of that, I think it's clear that they _SHOULD_ have been fixed... > if this attitude is endorsed by the project on a whole, which is the case > for fedora, see for example > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=228110#c19 > and look at all the conversations on this mailing list or fesco > decisions. ... but I also think Jeremy was right in the above-mentioned #c19, where he dropped the bug status to 'tracker'. That's 'SHOULD', not 'MUST'. > A FESCo vote (at least of today FESCo) would certainly be to let the > minor dm be broken Maybe. I, for one, would vote against it -- I'd expect those responsible for the PackageKit 'feature' to fix it _somehow_, rather than just leaving it broken. Even if there is some argument that the fix could be done a better way. > (hopefully they will be fixed for the RHEL release), I hope that's not an issue for FESCo members -- although it _should_ be a factor in the decision-making process of @redhat.com folks working on stuff. "We're going to have to do the sensible thing in RHEL in the end anyway; let's do it right away and not screw Fedora over". -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse@xxxxxxxxx Intel Corporation -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
