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 Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-10-2010, 02:08 PM
Matthias Clasen
 
Default Meeting summary/minutes for 2010-03-09 FESCo meeting

On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 15:51 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:

> It surprised me to see FESCo fight like that in a meeting. Some members
> are beside themselves in rage. Steering is hard, let's go shopping.

Whether someone is 'besides themselves in rage' is really hard to infer
from an irc log. I would recommend not to do that, and instead to attend
the meeting.

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-10-2010, 02:22 PM
Matthias Clasen
 
Default Meeting summary/minutes for 2010-03-09 FESCo meeting

On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:08 +0100, Till Maas wrote:

> Afaics this does not affect some minor issue, but a fundamental reason
> why package maintainer decided to become Fedora package maintainers.
> No volunteer package maintainer is in general forced to create updates
> and I am very sure that the volunteer package maintainers usually do not
> create updates that they do not want to use. So if you forbid package
> maintainers to package the version they want or need to use, being a
> fedora package maintainer becomes pretty useless for them.

I really think we want to have package maintainers whose motivation is a
bit stronger than 'I use this myself, so, meh, why not package it'. At
least for packages that are part of the default install, I would expect
at least some awareness on the part of the packager that the work he is
doing needs to fit into the larger whole which is the released product.


Matthias

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-10-2010, 02:38 PM
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
 
Default Meeting summary/minutes for 2010-03-09 FESCo meeting

On Wednesday, 10 March 2010 at 16:22, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:08 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > Afaics this does not affect some minor issue, but a fundamental reason
> > why package maintainer decided to become Fedora package maintainers.
> > No volunteer package maintainer is in general forced to create updates
> > and I am very sure that the volunteer package maintainers usually do not
> > create updates that they do not want to use. So if you forbid package
> > maintainers to package the version they want or need to use, being a
> > fedora package maintainer becomes pretty useless for them.
>
> I really think we want to have package maintainers whose motivation is a
> bit stronger than 'I use this myself, so, meh, why not package it'.

Why is that not motivation enough? Why wouldn't we want to have this kind
of people on board (assuming they follow the packaging guidelines and what
not)? Packaging isn't rocket science.

In fact, my motivation for packaging lots of stuff was: "Hmm, my colleagues
use this and they use Fedora so why not package it and save them the effort?"
In return, I ask them to test new releases. Even if they don't have time to
use bodhi, their feedback is still most valuable.

As Tom wrote on FAB list, the real problem is making it easier for users
to give feedback on updates. Only after we've solved that can we start
thinking of imposing restrictions on package maintainers wrt updates.

> At
> least for packages that are part of the default install, I would expect
> at least some awareness on the part of the packager that the work he is
> doing needs to fit into the larger whole which is the released product.

Agreed. However, we should ask ourselves if it's better to have a package
in our distribution even if it doesn't fit ideally with the rest or not
to have it at all?

I prefer the latter. Someone might step up as co-maintainer and help.
Starting from scratch is usually more difficult.

Regards,
Dominik

--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-10-2010, 03:02 PM
Till Maas
 
Default Meeting summary/minutes for 2010-03-09 FESCo meeting

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:22:37AM -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:08 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > Afaics this does not affect some minor issue, but a fundamental reason
> > why package maintainer decided to become Fedora package maintainers.
> > No volunteer package maintainer is in general forced to create updates
> > and I am very sure that the volunteer package maintainers usually do not
> > create updates that they do not want to use. So if you forbid package
> > maintainers to package the version they want or need to use, being a
> > fedora package maintainer becomes pretty useless for them.
>
> I really think we want to have package maintainers whose motivation is a
> bit stronger than 'I use this myself, so, meh, why not package it'. At
> least for packages that are part of the default install, I would expect
> at least some awareness on the part of the packager that the work he is
> doing needs to fit into the larger whole which is the released product.

So we are back to "not all packages are equal". I agree, that the work
hast to fit in the whole community, but this is where there are at least
two big parties within Fedora, that have a complete opposite idea about
it. And an official view, about what this is for Fedora does afaik not
exist, yet.

Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-10-2010, 03:34 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default Meeting summary/minutes for 2010-03-09 FESCo meeting

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 04:38:53PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 March 2010 at 16:22, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:08 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> >
> > > Afaics this does not affect some minor issue, but a fundamental reason
> > > why package maintainer decided to become Fedora package maintainers.
> > > No volunteer package maintainer is in general forced to create updates
> > > and I am very sure that the volunteer package maintainers usually do not
> > > create updates that they do not want to use. So if you forbid package
> > > maintainers to package the version they want or need to use, being a
> > > fedora package maintainer becomes pretty useless for them.
> >
> > I really think we want to have package maintainers whose motivation is a
> > bit stronger than 'I use this myself, so, meh, why not package it'.
>
> Why is that not motivation enough? Why wouldn't we want to have this kind
> of people on board (assuming they follow the packaging guidelines and what
> not)? Packaging isn't rocket science.
>
> In fact, my motivation for packaging lots of stuff was: "Hmm, my colleagues
> use this and they use Fedora so why not package it and save them the effort?"
> In return, I ask them to test new releases. Even if they don't have time to
> use bodhi, their feedback is still most valuable.
>
The way I'd put this is: I think we need *some* packagers whose motivation
is more than "I use this myself, so if I package it other people can benefit
too" since there are some parts of building a distro and packaging that are
plan not fun. But for a large percentage of the packages that we have that
is a perfectly sufficient reason. So we need to make the large number of
packagers who maintain those large number of packages feel welcome and make
it as easy as is sane for them to package things for Fedora.

> As Tom wrote on FAB list, the real problem is making it easier for users
> to give feedback on updates. Only after we've solved that can we start
> thinking of imposing restrictions on package maintainers wrt updates.
>
+1

> > At
> > least for packages that are part of the default install, I would expect
> > at least some awareness on the part of the packager that the work he is
> > doing needs to fit into the larger whole which is the released product.
>
Note that this doesn't necessarily conflict with "I use this myself so I'll
package it for others to use as well" All package maintainers are
weighing various options available to them when they make choices. Someone
may choose to update a package because they consider the bugs the update fix
to be a high enough priority that it needs to go out to the release. Others
may not update because they feel the risk of regression is too high. But
both packagers can very well be considering the role their package is
playing in the larger distribution.

> Agreed. However, we should ask ourselves if it's better to have a package
> in our distribution even if it doesn't fit ideally with the rest or not
> to have it at all?
>
> I prefer the latter. Someone might step up as co-maintainer and help.
> Starting from scratch is usually more difficult.
>
Reading this whole paragraph, I think you meant former in the first
sentence.

-Toshio
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-10-2010, 04:11 PM
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
 
Default Meeting summary/minutes for 2010-03-09 FESCo meeting

On Wednesday, 10 March 2010 at 17:34, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 04:38:53PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
[...]
> > Agreed. However, we should ask ourselves if it's better to have a package
> > in our distribution even if it doesn't fit ideally with the rest or not
> > to have it at all?
> >
> > I prefer the latter. Someone might step up as co-maintainer and help.
> > Starting from scratch is usually more difficult.
> >
> Reading this whole paragraph, I think you meant former in the first
> sentence.

Indeed, I meant the former of course.

Regards,
R.

--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-10-2010, 05:42 PM
Peter Boy
 
Default Meeting summary/minutes for 2010-03-09 FESCo meeting

> There are nearly no facts, so everyone is just
> guessing and many people are just ignoring objections.

That is true, indeed.

But do we really need detailed statistics to make a good decision?


All of us have an experience with Fedora over the last years. And I
*guess* ( :-) ) most or even all of them are quit happy with it
otherwise they would have left over time (a guess, not hard statistics).

Therefore, the Fedora project does it basically right! There is room for
improvement, of course, but is's fine tuning, not a decision dead or
alive (as the style of discussion of some participant might suggest).
All participants should keep that fact in mind!

And instead having 2 groups striving against each other we could
concentrate on *solutions* to make *both* happy (both groups are
obviously "relevant", by number and/or by constribution and engagement).
That would be a professional and constructive way to deal with the
situation. Several proposals have been made.


Peter




--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-10-2010, 07:01 PM
Peter Jones
 
Default Meeting summary/minutes for 2010-03-09 FESCo meeting

On 03/10/2010 02:16 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/10/2010 06:55 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>> I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
>> meeting.
>>
>> Jonathan, Do you have any thoughts on what we can do to correct it?
>>
>
> Follow basic IRC etiquette for meetings
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_use_IRC#Meeting_Protocol

Does anybody actually use these terrible rules?

--
Peter

Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-10-2010, 07:09 PM
Stephen John Smoogen
 
Default Meeting summary/minutes for 2010-03-09 FESCo meeting

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 03/10/2010 02:16 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 03/10/2010 06:55 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
>>> meeting.
>>>
>>> Jonathan, Do you have any thoughts on what we can do to correct it?
>>>
>>
>> Follow basic IRC etiquette for meetings
>>
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_use_IRC#Meeting_Protocol
>
> Does anybody actually use these terrible rules?

I wouldn't call them terrible. They only seem to be for certain kinds
of meetings which I would think are ones where people are spouting so
much that few can tell who is talking about who or what. Not everyone
can multiparse conversations at the rate you can .



--
Stephen J Smoogen.

Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for?
-- Robert Browning
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-11-2010, 10:55 PM
Dennis Gilmore
 
Default Meeting summary/minutes for 2010-03-09 FESCo meeting

On Tuesday 09 March 2010 04:41:07 pm Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:54:16 -0500, Bill wrote:
> > 20:59:11 <dgilmore> Kevin_Kofler: i dont see Michael Schwendt as
> > infulencial. he choose to largely abstain from fedora years ago
>
> Huh? Now, what exactly is your problem with me?
> What the heck are you referring to?

Sorry for not responding to you earlier. i choose not to read devel@ due to
how poisonous it has been i marked the 1700 odd emails read and carried on.

I have nothing against you at all.

I was referring to things like
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2007-June/msg00120.html

Where rather than work with fedora as you previously had you chose to be less
involved. which is perfectly fine and ok.

however i should have not said anything when Kevin Brought up your name. I
sent you a private apology. and ill say again here sorry i should not have
said anything it was not appropriate for me to do so

Dennis
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:25 PM.

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