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

Re: [Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

Josh Boyer wrote:

Here's the deal.  Spins have a process that are treated exactly like
Features.  Just because it's not under the purview of FESCo doesn't
mean that it's not still viable.

It would be still viable if the process is outlined. The process has to be in discussed and in place before FESCo delegates it to somebody else. After Fedora 8, FESCo essentially said, we don't want to deal with this and it has been a mass confusion ever since.

For Fedora 10, I went to rel-eng just so that some decisions can be made.

So you are allowed to make arbitrary decisions in a closed group, but
those that did the exact same thing at FUDCon are somehow evil?  Wtf.

A clearly outlined process and someone or a team needs to be accountable for decisions. In the absence of it and confusion over the process, I had to deal with somehow getting the spins I owned published (there weren't enough spin sig meetings and I can't be sitting on much if any because of different timezones) and asked for help in #fedora-devel and was told that rel-eng would approve spins and I participate in the meeting and got it approved. None of this was arbitrary or closed. I don't see how it compares at all to making decisions in FUDCon and claiming everyone was there.

That one came from me.  Having spins fail to compose during the week
that rel-eng is trying to get a milestone (Alpha, Beta, Preview) out the
door is simply an easy way to drop the Spin entirely.

It's not more cumbersome.  It's putting the responsibility for the spin
into the hands of the person that cares about it the most, which is the
spin owner.  So the week before a milestone release is going to be busy
for the SIG and the owners, but that is part of being a Spin owner.

I don't know what you want from a report and full fledged testing and reporting every two weeks is just not feasible for multiple spins for me as a spin owner. If you want just to know if it composes or not or if it is the right size and things like that, automated composes already give that information. Don't ask me to vote on this incomplete proposal. Please hash out the details in this list first and then get to the voting part. Premature voting would leave us with just as much confusion as before.

Look, creating an official Spin is not as simple as "here is my kickstart
file, go build this please."

No, it is not. I have to spend a lot of time, getting that kickstart file in place first. It isn't a simple matter of running some composes and calling it a day. There is a heck lot of finicky details to take care of. Rawhide breaks my compose in subtle ways. You are in rel-eng. You know the amount of work it takes to get alpha,beta and general releases out. Are you really asking me to do that work every two weeks for multiple spins? You can't be serious. This feels more like a punishment that I have to suffer because other spins broke.

The bar has been raised, and this is not a bad thing.

Yes, as long as you dont arbitrarily the raise the amount of work someone has to do without any justification and not helping them in the process. I was once getting blamed for a Xfce spin compose that failed because Fedora infrastructure was running a updated (slightly broken) version of livecd-tools than the GA version. How about giving me access, so that I can do composes in the same environment that you do? Help me with this instead of just adding more overhead.


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