consequences when a feature gets dropped (Re: FESCo Meeting Summary for 2008-09-17)

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 18.09.2008 19:18, zimbra wrote:
> Thorsten Leemhuis said the following on 09/18/2008 09:58 AM Pacific Time:
>> On 18.09.2008 14:13, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>> == Summary ==
>>> === Features ===
>>  > [...]
>>> As an added note, the following Feature pages have not been updated.  
>>> They
>>> need to be updated before Beta or they will be dropped as Features:
>>> ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BetterStartup
>>> ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/EFI
>>> ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FirstAidKit
>>> ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GNOME2_24
>>> ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GoodHaskellSupport
>>> ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/HDTVEnhancements
>>> ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/KernelModesetting
>>> ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/OnlineAccountsService
>>> ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/RPM4.6
>>> ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SaveToBugzilla
>>> ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Sugar
>>> ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/TimeZoneAndLocation
>> What exactly are the consequences if a Feature "will be dropped"? It 
>> sounds a bit like a threat and as something bad. But is it really?
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy/Dropping

thx for the pointer

> Since the beginning of the feature process we have referred to it this
> way.  To date this is best motivational technique we've been able to
> find to get people to update their feature pages.  We'd gladly accept
> suggestion for something better :)
> 
> "dropped" essentially means it won't be advertised as a key feature of
> the release on this page:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/10/FeatureList

Well, that logic does work much for me. If I'd be a *lazy* fedora 
contributor (and I'm sure we have some of those then work on 
middle-sized or big features) then I'd just do my work and simply ignore 
the whole feature process right from the start (or at this point) to 
avoid the bureaucracy that it brings. Sure, my Feature then might not 
get mentioned in the FeatureList -- but a lazy packager might not think 
about that at all or just say "that's mainly Fedora's problem, not mine".

But if that scheme works for you guys then I won't ask more stupid 
questions, especially as I normally don't have to deal with the Feature 
process much :-) .

But I have one final question (hopefully not that stupid): Is anybody 
doing checks for "new features" (as i features, not as in feature 
process) that (for example) should get mentioned in the release notes 
and checked during QA, but don't have a Feature page (yet)? Take for 
example KDE 4.1, which afaics has no Feature page (correct me if I'm 
wrong, I could not find one), but at least should get mentioned in the 
realease notes properly.

 > [...]

CU
knurd