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

Re: Python 3.0



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

David G. Mackay wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 07:45 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> David G. Mackay wrote:
>>
>>> And, perhaps FESCO would feel differently about the impact of things if
>>> THEY relied upon Fedora.  I refer to minutes from one of the FESCO
>>> meetings where they discussed the issue.  The point was raised that
>>> Fedora Infrastructure utilized Zope.  But, the counter was that Fedora
>>> Infrastructure servers use RHEL5, so no problem.  Sounds like the U. S.
>>> Congress making sure that they aren't impacted by their own decisions.
>> Fedora infrastructure team is not the same group as FESCo. Fedora 
>> infrastructure team runs Fedora or RHEL depending on their needs. That 
>> has nothing to do with FESCo.
> 
> You do love to split hairs.  It's clear from the minutes that FESCO was
> concerned that the functionality supplied by Zope should be available to
> Fedora Infrastructure, and didn't have to rely on F7 to supply it.  The
> rest of us mortals didn't fare so well.
> 
Heh.  If you really want your hairs split, it's really the Fedora
Documentation Project that wants to use Zope/Plone.  Infrastructure just
manages the services. :-)

Since that's not really the information you want, let's look at it this
another way: Do you have a team of people who are maintaining
zope/plone/python2.4 right now?  Is it going well?  How do they decide
which python modules to build for python2.4?  Do they limit the bug
reports they deal with to bug reports against zope/plone or do they
handle bugs from people who are running python2.4 for other reasons?
Most importantly, are they willing to commit to maintaining this stack
of packages for the life of F-7?

I'm no longer on FESCo but these were some of the questions that were
asked that have a technical justification and I highly suspect that the
current FESCo will listen to the answers to these questions as well when
deciding whether compat-python can exist within Fedora without putting
too much extra work on the rest of the distro.

Finally, I want to keep stressing that FESCo did not ban zope or plone.
 They discussed what the standard of commitment should be for a person
or team to maintain a compat-python package in Fedora.  We wanted to
allow this goal to be met:
"[including] a wide range of packages that fits into the various
different needs of the users."

But not at the expense of:
"[being] on the leading edge of free and open source technology, by
adopting and helping develop new features and version upgrades."
and
"[providing] a robust development platform for building software and
robust general integrated set of software that balances the needs for
both desktop and server users."

The questions we wanted answered were to ensure that there was a
commitment by the packager(s) involved in compat-python2.4 to meet the
robustness goal for the life of the packages so that people working on
the leading edge goal didn't have to stop what they were doing and fix
problems with the compat- packages.

* Goals copied from: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives
* Note: when Jeremy has a chance to reply to these messages he may have
a different perspective on FESCo's discussions as he was arguing the
opposite point of view as I was.

- -Toshio
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG2unsX6yAic2E7kgRAr0/AJ9Cqm7EuiaZ5JYPpTr2NaUQfzy6dACgs+K4
lx0yfHyO2lvnDWB/lvPCnuE=
=i5MB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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