-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:31:56 +0100
>> Patrice Dumas <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> Why not? One could imagine that somebody steps up to package the stuff
>>> needed by the old firewire stack? I don't know that issue very well,
>>> but I can imagine people wanting to fix things in fedora if they are
>>> annoying them.
>> Also, there is a /huge/ difference between "I can package this!" and "I
>> can be responsible for all the bug reports regarding this, and help to
>> transition folks using this to that, and help improve that along the
> This is the philosophical issue - but it applies whether you support
> backwards compatiblity or not. In the now diverged firewire juju thread
> there is a comment:
> "Awesome, we definitely need more help. Neither krh nor I is able to
> spend quite as much time on juju as we'd like right now..."
> Of course "stuff happens" and things aren't ever going to be perfect,
> but why does a fundamental change go in at the device driver level
> without providing a way to revert to the previous version unless there
> is at least some expectation of having the resources to fix the new
> problems that will almost certainly show up?
Priorities change, unexpected problems crop up, things take much longer than
anyone anticipated, etc.
Also, note that a lot of the remaining current issues *might* be resolved by
some forthcoming juju firewire patches from the linux1394 git tree, which I'm
going to try to get into rawhide this afternoon... David Moore did a lot of
excellent work over the holiday break while I was busy not paying much
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
fedora-devel-list mailing list