Proposal: Better force-tag

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:15:15 -0400
dledford at redhat.com (Doug Ledford) wrote:

> On Sun, 2008-09-14 at 12:23 -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-09-14 at 17:52 +0200, Denis Leroy wrote:
> > > Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> > > > Ultimately nothing can stop the user from using cvs tag -F, so
> > > > any solution (including this one, which I like a lot) would
> > > > have to be server-side.
> > > 
> > > That's what they're planning to do, despite many objections. When
> > > will the FeSCo minutes be available on the wiki ? I would like to
> > > know who voted for this.
> > 
> > I'm planning to write up the summary later today, but the IRC logs
> > are available as soon as the meeting ends.
> > 
> > http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/fesco/
> 
> So, this is to dgilmore, bpepple, jds2001, and nirik (the 4 people
> that voted for this action):  you have just made it highly likely
> that you will not ever get my vote to participate as a member of
> FESCo again (I don't say this as a threat, just to let you know that
> your actions in this endeavor so directly counter what I want/expect
> out of FESCo that I don't consider you the right people for the job
> any more).

Fair enough. 

...snipp...

> Look guys, maybe what we have here is a case of mis-communication.

I think this entire thing has been a lot of mis-communication. 

First of all I didn't think this was that big a deal. 
I have used 'make force-tag' and/or 'TAG_OPTS=-F make tag' a few times,
but it was very few and far between. I guess possibly because I don't
have packages that have tons of changes always happening. 
(yes, I also mockbuild locally my packages before checking in changes
too, which I realize is not practical for everyone). 

It seems that forcing tags is heavily in the main path of some
developers. ;( I disagree that some of those reasons are needed, but it
sure seems to upset some people, and there is no reason to force a
change before we have some work around. 

Given this I would like to see this revisited this week, and reverse
the changes until we can get some fix in place (I like ajax's patch
using Entities, but thats up to the buildsys/koji folks). 

> So, let me communicate what I expect out of FESCo/Fedora.  Maybe I'm
> wrong and my expectations are unreasonable.  If so, I'll accept that
> answer. But what I saw here was what I would expect to see in some
> proprietary company under a self imposed deadline that cuts corners
> to get the job done.  I don't participate in Fedora for that.  I
> participate in Fedora because it's *supposed* to be the a place where
> we put quality above expediency and we don't just do things, we do
> them right.  In fact, I care about that so much that it is definitely
> a valid voting item as far as I'm concerned.  I don't see this as
> being anywhere close to doing things right, this is a sloppy,
> half-assed attempt to deal with a legitimate problem by not actually
> dealing with it at all.  I won't vote for that, so by extension I
> won't vote for people that support doing things this way.  If I'm in
> the wrong place, and Fedora is about doing things the expedient way
> instead of the right way, let me know and I'll let you be.

I don't think you are wrong, but I think this entire thing has been a
miscommunication of the importantance of this change. I personally
didn't think it was a big deal, it seems I was wrong. 

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20080915/67bb77dc/attachment.sig>