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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Unfinished business from last week's meeting



On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 08:42:47PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> 
> Also, we decided that the
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ServerProvides draft
> should be pushed via the feature process, and FESCo had no issues with

I have done it, but, after some thinking (and tedious wiki editing), I 
think that it is an abuse of the Features stuff, for 2 reasons:

* Features stuff sucks time, so it should be used when it is necessary,
  or the maintainer wants to. I didn't want to, and it is not useful
  for this feature.

* Features stuff is for things that need to be communicated or for
* important chnages. This feature is internal developpers only -- low 
  user impact -- nobody outside of fedora cares -- I will do spec patches
  and fill bugs myself. If we begin to add a feature for each and every
  change in fedora the ratio of signal over noise in features will be
  very low. In my opinion, there are already too much features for F9
  for efficient communication.
  
  It isn't problematic if the signal over noise is bad, if fedora people
  want to advertise their works. But in my case, I don't care, so it is 
  better to leave place for those who really want to instead of forcing
  me.

I am not objecting to Features as such, for example, Texlive, Kde4,
RPM and Yum enhancements and Presto are good features in my opinion
(major changes for the 2 first, and something that has been repeatedly
discussed for the others). And, once again I don't object if people want
to show what they will do for next release. Being forced to for
unimportant features is not a good idea.

--
Pat


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