Move Evolution to Extras?

[Jeff Spaleta]

On 4/12/06, Dimi Paun <dimi at lattica.com> wrote:
> Give me a break. Alan is just not anybody, and neither is dwmw2,
> and others in Red Hat.
> Dumping Evo now, after being pushed for years by RH, can not
> be a Good Thing (TM).

Relying on a default application that does not have upstream
development momentum and is accumulating security related issues which
are not being fixed is also a problem.  In a world with no perfect
solution and no way to know the future, all choices are sub-optimal. 
For every reason you can think of to stick with an application choice
over multiple releases for consistency, I can think of a circumstances
where there is a detrimental effect..even for business users... when
that codebase is no longer being appropriately supported by upstream.

No one is suggesting that moving or dropping evo is a decision that
will be painless. But there absolutely must be flexibility to review
application inclusions decisions from time to time and modify the
software that is offered based on concerns about maintainability and
security over consistency.  Clearly there needs to be a commitment to
a piece of software that is included for more than oen release of
fedora...but its absurd to think that its inappropriate to discuss the
option of trading a piece of software out for something more secure
and better maintained upstream... six releases into the process.


-jef"here's what I don't get in dimi's post. He suggest that the
opinions of alan and other red hatter engineers  hold extras special
weight just because they are employees, contrary to the statements
made by a fedora board member. If dimi really really believes that,
why is dimi bothering to be a part of this discussion at all, since by
dimi's own logic his opinion doesn't count. You either accept that
this is an open dialog where people have an equal access to explain
and support their position or you don't. And if you don't well then
don't bother wading into the discussion."spaleta