[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: June stable push ?



On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:10:45 +0200
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora leemhuis info> wrote:

> On 12.06.2009 18:24, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
...snip...
> > Well, somewhat agreed. What critical issue is waiting to be
> > addressed?
> 
> I didn't follow the EPEL that closely, but these are the things that
> sprung to my mind without consulting the archives:
> 
> - the "java is now in RHEL and EPEL" issue

Agreed. I think we pretty much all agree that it should be removed or
replaced with a version that is just the plugin asap. 

> - how to prevent things like the java issue in the future

We need to find someone who talks to RHEL folks internally to
communicate such changes to us. I have no idea at all how to find such
a person. Does anyone else?

> - prepare for RHEL6 -- how do we get lot of Fedora packages into EPEL
> for release day, as it later get hard for packagers

There was talk about this long ago... and some thoughts of doing a mass
rebuild of fedora package to see what would be easy to move in, but
it's really hard to do that without knowing what RHEL6 is going to be
based on or have something we can test against. I think this is really
going to have to wait until there is at least a beta out. 

> - can we make peace with CentOS and Dag somehow?

I would love to, but no idea how to off hand. 

> - can we make support CentOS in the phases better, where RHEL X.Y is
> out, but Centos ist still on X.(Y-1)

I thought we agreed to wait in such cases for centos. 

> - koji/bodhi status

Being worked on. There are tickets filed and people doing the work. 

> - do we have one look and feel? I got the impression that some
> packagers update their packagers more in a Fedora-like way, while
> others are more debian-like (which up to a point is okay, but I'm not
> sure if we have left that point behind us)

Yeah, agreed. 

> There are likely more things.
...snip...
> > I have tried (twice or three times, I forget) to get regular
> > meetings going again. Either I can't get a time where everyone can
> > attend, no one does attend, or people forget about the meetings. 
> 
> Meetings itself are not important, solving problems and improving the
> project is -- that can be done via the list to if people want to.

Sure, it can, but in practice I find it never does. 
If there is a meeting on a standard schedule, people get asked about
progress on things or new thoughts discussed. When there is no regular
meeting people say "I should do that sometime, will try and remember
to" and it gets lost, or the work on things where they have been bugged
in a meeting about them. 

Any of the subparts of Fedora I am active in, I find that the ones that
have regular meetings stay active and moving, and the ones that don't
or try and just "do things when we want on the list" stagnate. 

...snip...

> >> That is still the case afaics. Only dglimore can actually do the
> >> push and testing->stable moves.
> > Yes, this is the case as far as I know. 
> 
> Another problem that IMHO should have get solved -- relying on one
> person and putting all the push-work on that persons shoulder IMHO is
> bad for everyone.

Sure, agreed. However, dgilmore is the only one who can fix it. 

> No need to say sorry. Actually I would have had not much of a problem
> to prepare another push or two if the Steering Committee or someone
> would have asked me to. It just felt of my radar -- and even if I had
> remembered it it likely would have felt a bit like "hey, seems the
> Steering Committee is mostly inactive, so why should I invest my time
> then".

Sure, and thanks for noting things and hopefully getting us revived. 

> CU
> knurd

kevin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]