On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dax Kelson (dkelson@xxxxxxxxxxxx) said: >> I would argue strongly that this change should not be made for the >> following reasons (in no particular order): > > So, I'd like to take a different tack to this request. I don't want > to be combative, but I'm genuinely curious. > > This change was documented as part of the BetterStartup feature on the > wiki page ever since existed. For those playing at home, that's roughly a > year and a half. No one complained on this list. > > The feature was proposed to FESCo, and approved. No one complained > on this list. > > The feature was implemented, and landed in rawhide. No one complained > on this list. > > Will mentioned it on the list, as an adjunct to a release note (more > or less). Everybody showed up. > > Are people not running rawhide and the test releases? Are they not > looking at features as they are proposed and being involved in the > process? Are they just sitting around waiting to be outraged? > Hmmm on the way home from work, my old man brain cells kicked and I realized where I saw this before: A long time ago in a company in RDU, NC, USA there was a product called Red Hat Linux. When Red Hat Linux 6.0 was about to come out, we got new boxes to look at and they said something like: Red Hat Linux 6.. there was a hue and a cry from various developers and tech support people that this was a change out of no-where. Management and marketing reminded people that the lead developers had been to all the meetings where it had been announced, and it had been on the various people's white boards for months. After a bunch of arguing etc it was decided that it would be called 6.0 and we would revisit it for 7. Which it was but this time it was better communicated and while various developers and support techs would talk over lunch that it was marketing taking over the company... people were more aware and new it was going to happen. By the time Red Hat Linux 8 and 9 came out all that was left was dealing with the various customer culture that expected a RHL 8.1 versus a 9.. and by the time the Fedora numberings were in place.. there wasnt much talk about FC1.1... in fact the developers seemed to be all for calling it 2. And while this was just a naming change.. it was a big deal to the cultures involved. Technical changes on the other hand have a bigger issue especially when documentation may need to be reprinted, training has to be updated and you always end up with the chance you are going to relive the great egcs or similar changes where it looks great for the small amount of beta testers but not everywhere. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
