On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 11:31 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 07/14/2011 11:16 AM, James Laska wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 20:58 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > >> On 07/13/2011 08:11 PM, James Laska wrote: > >>> Quite a bit smaller than the 100+ bugs on the list. Was that decision > >>> from a recent FESCO meeting? > >> It's the one held on 15 June. > >> > >> See this thread on -devel [1] also note that FESCO accepted the feature > >> [2] on the bases that native systemd unit files will be accepted up to > >> beta after that no more native systemd service files will be introduced > >> in the release during it's lifetime. > >> > >> "Developers will need to convert the old sysvinit init scripts to native > >> systemd ones and/or review and use ones that have been provided to them > >> and package them as per packaging guidelines which can be found here > >> <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines:Systemd> with sample > >> scriptlet snippet which can be found here > >> <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd> no > >> later then beta for inclusions in the release." > >> > >> 1.http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-June/152780.html > >> 2.http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SysVtoSystemd > > Thanks, that's all I could find too. I don't read that as meaning > > anything sysvinit->systemd gets a free ride as an automatic blocker. I > > read that as FESCO has approved the sysvinit->systemd feature to > > continue developing beyond the feature freeze. > > I never said it was a blocker what I said was that it was aggreed to > that service in +core + base + base -X plus what service are on the live > cd would be alpha blockers see the meeting logs and the the thread on > devel for that discussion. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your use of the word "blocker". Regardless, it sounds like we are all in agreement. We are concluding that they won't be considered as blocker *bugs* (alpha or otherwise). Unless of course the absence, or presence, of the updated systemd script does somehow cause any of the Alpha criteria to fail. They won't be considered blocker bugs, but FESCO has the right to delay release of any milestone (alpha, beta or final) should they decide a late/inprogress feature is a must for a particular milestone. > Once we are passed alpha I will do assessment on the conversion process > and discuss with Fesco what ( if any ) next goal should be ( potential > beta blockers ) . To make sure I'm understanding, do you mean the next goal would be to determine the status of the SysV->systemd feature and whether it will be on track for a Beta TC1 target? If it isn't ... FESCO must decide whether to hold the release, or drop the feature. Thanks, James
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
