On mán 16.des 2013 18:17, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 10.12.2013, 20:51 +0000 schrieb "Jóhann B.
> On 12/10/2013 07:59 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>> And last but not least we need manpower for it's development and
>> maintenance. And this is where no other desktop can beat GNOME.
> Step right back how the community is working and reread the statement
> you just made...
> Gnome developers within the project as well as many other upstream
> maintainers we have handle their development upstream and Gnome
> developers within our project as well as many other upstream developers
> we have prefer getting their reports filed upstream so what kind of
> downstream development are you seeing here that would be specific for
> Fedora only and to the workstation product that specifically requires
> their full time present here within the project and which application
> developers have agreed to devote their free time developing those that
> applications ?
I never said I want any distro-specific downstream development,
Then why make that statement?
Fedora's mission is to lead, not to follow.
We are in no position to lead anything these days and we will certanly
not do that with the WG/Next proposal in play
We not only consume
development, we drive it.
No we dont and never have upstream has always driven their own development.
The only thing we did was to implement upstream first which we are
incapable of doing these days.
Whatever becomes our workstation product, we
want it to set new standards - not only for us but for the overall Linux
ecosystem. It would be a shame if all our efforts are limited to Fedora
or if we focus on simply integrating upstream bits into Fedora nicely.
Which is what we have always done.
Therefor we need manpower - that's all I said.
The place we need manpower is in the service sub-communities and always
> When you make this statement "last but not least we need manpower for
> it's development and maintenance." with the exception of the kernel as
> far as I know the general rule of thumb for developers within the
> project is to fix in upstream first then backport fix downstream so what
> exactly is the benefit of your statement?
No matter how well we collaborate with upstream, we may find ourselves
in situations where we need a fix ASAP and cannot wait for upstream.
We are not Ubuntu and apply hack to work around proper fixes and we all
know proper fixes can and do take time thus we have more often then not
have to wait for upstream ( which we more often then not do rather then
apply short hot fixes ).
When we are to release the workstation product, and find it has a bug
does not work well with something else in Fedora, we need a fix and
cannot wait until upstream has time for us. of course we can - and
should still upstream it later.
The reality is as Adam has pointed out we release anyway but sure if you
So here's an thing regarding the desktop environments, encase you have
missed it the era of traditional desktop is slowly coming to an end so
the desktop environments are entering the phase of self preservation.
Everything that the Gnome community is doing ( and to a certain extent
is influencing us in the process you know the whole installment of
application outside the distribution ) is leading up to them releasing
their own GnomeOS which makes Fedora entirely irrelevant in the process.
Now if Gnome community is serious about preserving themselves, they have
essentially be given second chance doing so as I see ( after being to
late for the mobile/tablet space ) , and they should be a) entering
dialog with valve and b) pushing faster then ever for that inevitable
future and release GnomeOS with collaboration with valve and have
steamOS be entirely based on that ( and maybe for the first time
actually have HW platform(s) to tie themselves with and be sold out of
stores directly in the hands of end users ).
If I lived and worked in the RH ivory tower I would be pushing for this
as well so a) the company investment in Gnome all those years would not
be going down the drain and b) getting return of investment by providing
knowledge and the means to valve as well as providing it with long time
support for the steamOS ( to/for the parts of it needs ) .
But I dont work for RH nor am I a part of upstream Gnome so meh what do
I know what would be the right thing for either party to do...
> Would it not be better use of developers time to have packagers
> the primary downstream packaging ( with developers themselves only
> acting as co-maintainers and overseeing the distribution implementation
> ) so they have more time dealing with bugfixes and implementing features
Sure, I would love to see this, especially for the GNOME desktop, but
this is a completely different story. Actually the decision about what
DE makes the workstation product is already a different story. Let's not
make the 2nd or 3rd step before the first, so let's first agree on
criteria and then see what DE matches them best.
> Now with my QA hat on I must say that I prefer that we as well start
> looking into reporting where the developers are actually listening since
> that will in turn increase the likely hood that bug will be seen as well
> as being fixed which benefits everybody not only us here within Fedora
> and *improve* overall end user experience with Fedora.
> Now if that happens to be in bugzilla.redhat we use bugzilla.redhat if
> that happens to be in bugzilla.gnome we use bugzilla.gnome...
It's not like I disagree, but when I write something, please don't jump
to your own conclusions. When I say we need manpower for our product, I
am not saying we should become a cookie-cutter distro.
You are the one that put manpower and Gnome together in the same
sentence trying to justify why it should be the default desktop product
I'm not seeing how I jump to any conclusion I perceived what you wrote
as you wrote it.
To me that justification is does not hold water and for the sake of
Gnome if anything Fedora is holding it's progress back if they are tying
themselves to us.
We as an distribution currently cannot move on the pace they need to be
moving at, to keep themselves relevant but we can adapt to that
*without* forcing everybody in the community doing so in the process.
The WG process however is not providing the distribution with those
means nor working towards doing so.
And last but not least: If you jump to your conclusions, please don't
sell them as my views in public on Google+. If you write I "used to
stand for his believes" and then present your answer (but not my initial
statement), you imply that I had somehow changed and no longer stand for
my believes. Please try to stick what I actually wrote.
You may have the perception of yourself that you have not change but I
perceive you different now then when you where fighting for the
community equality with for example the live dvd so stand by what I said
on that my G+ post and I suggest you take a look at yourself back then