FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Advisory Board

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-12-2008, 07:00 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Fedora 11 schedule proposal

On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 20:44 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Fedora is a Red Hat sponsored project and a lot of Fedora developers are
> payed by Red Hat. Nevertheless: What really irritates and annoys me is
> that it at least *looks like* the idea to delay Fedora 11 a bit to help
> RHEL 6 seems to come from *within* the project.
>
> That's IMHO totally wrong way around and IMHO should not have happened.
>
> Fedora IMHO should try to more act like a independent project if Fedora
> wants to get taken serious; otherwise Fedora will always stay a RH pet
> project that is unattractive to other medium or big sized Linux
> companies that might want to get involved in Fedora as well.
>
> Things like that also won't help to get rid of the "Fedora is just a
> RHEL beta" fame most of us dislike.
>
> Note that I have *no* problem with the idea itself that RH might want us
> to delay F11 (apart from the fact that I belive that predictable release
> dates are quite important). But RH should clearly have asked the project
> in a kind of official way "Can you please consider a one month delay for
> F11 as it would suite us very well".

That's just it. "Red Hat" isn't asking us to delay. They're asking us
to pick a schedule and they'll deal. Knowing what "Red Hat" is going to
do in the next year or so as RHEL 6 gets under way, I wanted to give
Fedora the biggest benefit to that extra attention as possible, and to
me that meant giving F11 a full 6 month cycle. After F11 is out, I
can't guess when RHEL will import Fedora sources and "branch" CVS. At
that time, it would be harder to get RHEL resources looking at Fedora
things, and harder to get RHEL fixes done in Fedora.

This is not at all Red Hat asking us to delay. Red Hat will do whatever
it needs to do for RHEL, be it tracking F11 fully, or branching early,
or late, or whatever.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-12-2008, 07:14 PM
Seth Vidal
 
Default Fedora 11 schedule proposal

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:



I agree with Jeremy on this one. In the past, pushing out target dates
usually cause more conflicts with other schedules than it helps.



I'm going to have to add my voice in here, too. I agree with Jeremy and
Smooge.


-sv

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-12-2008, 07:15 PM
Josh Boyer
 
Default Fedora 11 schedule proposal

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:00:08PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
>On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 20:44 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Fedora is a Red Hat sponsored project and a lot of Fedora developers are
>> payed by Red Hat. Nevertheless: What really irritates and annoys me is
>> that it at least *looks like* the idea to delay Fedora 11 a bit to help
>> RHEL 6 seems to come from *within* the project.
>>
>> That's IMHO totally wrong way around and IMHO should not have happened.
>>
>> Fedora IMHO should try to more act like a independent project if Fedora
>> wants to get taken serious; otherwise Fedora will always stay a RH pet
>> project that is unattractive to other medium or big sized Linux
>> companies that might want to get involved in Fedora as well.
>>
>> Things like that also won't help to get rid of the "Fedora is just a
>> RHEL beta" fame most of us dislike.
>>
>> Note that I have *no* problem with the idea itself that RH might want us
>> to delay F11 (apart from the fact that I belive that predictable release
>> dates are quite important). But RH should clearly have asked the project
>> in a kind of official way "Can you please consider a one month delay for
>> F11 as it would suite us very well".
>
>That's just it. "Red Hat" isn't asking us to delay. They're asking us
>to pick a schedule and they'll deal. Knowing what "Red Hat" is going to
>do in the next year or so as RHEL 6 gets under way, I wanted to give
>Fedora the biggest benefit to that extra attention as possible, and to
>me that meant giving F11 a full 6 month cycle. After F11 is out, I
>can't guess when RHEL will import Fedora sources and "branch" CVS. At
>that time, it would be harder to get RHEL resources looking at Fedora
>things, and harder to get RHEL fixes done in Fedora.

Not just Red Hat resources either. There are business partners that
track RHEL releases. Who knows, maybe they are willing to focus on
a Fedora release in order to make sure what they care about is in good
shape for RHEL. That means more people testing and using.

josh

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-12-2008, 07:19 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Fedora 11 schedule proposal

On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 15:14 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
> >
> > I agree with Jeremy on this one. In the past, pushing out target dates
> > usually cause more conflicts with other schedules than it helps.
> >
>
> I'm going to have to add my voice in here, too. I agree with Jeremy and
> Smooge.


So the alternate proposal is to keep the May 1~ release date of F11? I
suppose it's a schedule.

How do we want to handle this then, we've got at least two alternatives,
potentially more, who decides this?

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-12-2008, 07:20 PM
Josh Boyer
 
Default Fedora 11 schedule proposal

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:19:19PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
>On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 15:14 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I agree with Jeremy on this one. In the past, pushing out target dates
>> > usually cause more conflicts with other schedules than it helps.
>> >
>>
>> I'm going to have to add my voice in here, too. I agree with Jeremy and
>> Smooge.
>
>
>So the alternate proposal is to keep the May 1~ release date of F11? I
>suppose it's a schedule.
>
>How do we want to handle this then, we've got at least two alternatives,
>potentially more, who decides this?

FESCo, then the Board? Or the Board can delegate to FESCo? One of the
two.

josh

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-12-2008, 07:21 PM
"Tom "spot" Callaway"
 
Default Fedora 11 schedule proposal

On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 15:14 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
> >
> > I agree with Jeremy on this one. In the past, pushing out target dates
> > usually cause more conflicts with other schedules than it helps.
> >
>
> I'm going to have to add my voice in here, too. I agree with Jeremy and
> Smooge.

So, what you guys are saying is that we need a 5 month F11? That's how
we hit the original "May Day" target.

I'd be interested in seeing alternate schedule dates from those
dissenting.

~spot

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-12-2008, 07:51 PM
"Jeff Spaleta"
 
Default Fedora 11 schedule proposal

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@gmail.com> wrote:
> FESCo, then the Board? Or the Board can delegate to FESCo? One of the
> two.

Is this really Board fodder at all? I'm of the opinion that RelEng
oversight is completely and utterly FESCo's jurisdiction. If FESCo
wants to punt to the Board, okay I guess...but if FESCo can't come to
a decision on this... is the Board better equipped to do it? I really
really doubt we'd overrule FESCo's decision given the same public
discussion as context .

But if this comes down to a judgement call and people want someone to
blame if the wrong decision is made... I'm more than happy to sign off
on the wrong decision to give everyone else some cover.


-jef"If I have to hear about this in a Board call, I'm just going to
make it a point to disagree with FESCo on this, just to drag the
process out so everything slips even more."spaleta

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-12-2008, 08:10 PM
"Paul W. Frields"
 
Default Fedora 11 schedule proposal

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 02:25:18PM -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 14:22 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Jeremy Katz (katzj@redhat.com) said:
> > > > So, given that you already say we historically make up the slippage
> > > > over two release cycles, you're violently objecting over.... a week?
> > >
> > > We make it up over two release cycles because we targeted to get back on
> > > track for the first one and then slip for it and then get kind of close
> > > for the second one
> >
> > Sure, but I'm not sure pretending we won't slip is viable. If we do
> > take the 'attempt to make it up over two cycles' method, then this proposed
> > schedule is only a 1-1/2 to 2 week adjustment to that. So I don't think
> > it's that far out of line.
>
> Until we slip from the schedule, at which point it's more like 4-5
> weeks.

I think this assertion assumes the more granular revision in freeze
periods is not going to have any effect on slippage.

--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-12-2008, 08:15 PM
Max Spevack
 
Default Fedora 11 schedule proposal

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Jeff Spaleta wrote:

Is this really Board fodder at all? I'm of the opinion that RelEng
oversight is completely and utterly FESCo's jurisdiction.


I'm inclined to agree.

if FESCo can't come to a decision on this... is the Board better
equipped to do it? I really really doubt we'd overrule FESCo's
decision given the same public discussion as context .


When a sub-committee or sub-project of Fedora can't come to a decision
on something, it is the Board's mandate to see to it that the decision
is still made in a timely fashion, and to provide not only the decision,
but also the rationale behind it.


And if the Board is deadlocked, then the FPL must make the call.

That doesn't mean the Board or the FPL has to make the decision all by
themselves, but the decision MUST still be made.


--Max

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 11-12-2008, 08:16 PM
"Jeff Spaleta"
 
Default Fedora 11 schedule proposal

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Paul W. Frields <stickster@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this assertion assumes the more granular revision in freeze
> periods is not going to have any effect on slippage.

Do we have anything which helps us quantify the expectation for the
new processes either way?
More granular freezing is the new hotness..so we don't have an
expectation on performance do we? I would caution building in a
benefit from the new process, and just assume for scheduling purposes
its a wash. And if there is a benefit account for it in the F12
schedule by adjusting things there.

-jef

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:40 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org