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

Re: What next?



On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 15:23 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > > 
> > > Nice of y'all to allow yourself longer release cycles while denying it
> > > to fedora community developers.
> > 
> > Not fair--see below.
> 
> My dad used to say something about things not being fair....
> 

I get it that life's not fair.  But you (and I) can be fair if we want
to.

> >  I even think that your suggestion
> > of a one-time-for-now 9 month cycle could make sense. 
> 
> 
> good.

Heh--violent agreement.

> >  But the stuff that's required to hit an 18 month target is just Night And Day
> > different.
> 
> 
> I wasn't recommending an 18 month target, I was saying that I thought
> lengthening the fc devel cycle would help us get some things done that
> we just haven't had the time to do.

OK.  I misunderstood your proposal when you chose to quote off of
Daniel's message about 18 month.  Had you continued from the 9 month
proposal, I would have continued reading, with interest.  I apologize
for misinterpreting your intent.

> 
> [...] So I guess you can understand why I'm a bit pissed at
> being talked down to  by you when I sat in a meeting 3 months ago about
> the fedora extras buildsystem process and I was the only one who
> volunteered to work on it. Why? B/c everyone else was too busy. Hell, I
> was too busy, too but I wanted it to happen and it appeared that was the
> only way it was GOING to happen.
> 
> Someone else set the objectives and I met them.

You misinterpreted me.  I was not talking about any shortcomings of the
work on Fedora Core or Extras.  I was talking about the perception that
many people have about what it takes to hit an 18 month target.  Since
that wasn't your intent, my point was irrelevant.

M


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