On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:47:39AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 10/31/2012 08:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>My concern at this point is exactly that we're "slipping a week at a
>time", rather than facing up to the*undeniable fact* that anaconda is
>not close to being shippable. If we don't have a workable contingency
>plan, I think the best thing to do would be to start slipping a month at
>a time. And drop the beta-freeze restrictions, until we reach a point
>where anaconda actually is beta quality. Other people have work they
>could usefully be getting done, except that they have to jump through
>these beta-freeze hoops --- which not incidentally are slowing down
>anaconda work too. It's insane that we are wasting time debating
>whether anaconda bugs are release blockers or beta blockers or only NTH,
>when any honest evaluation would recognize that the whole thing hasn't
>reached alpha quality yet, and*all* those bugs had better get fixed if
>we don't want F18 to permanently damage the reputation of Fedora.
>
>You can slip a month (or two) honestly, or you can fritter it away a
>week at a time, and ensure that as much of that time is unproductive as
>possible. There is not a third option. (Brooks'_Mythical_Man-Month_
>has useful things to say about this sort of scheduling trap --- anybody
>who hasn't read it should.)
Had I any say in the matter I would have strongly urged to not enter
the beta freeze when we did. I also think it's counter-productive
to getting things in shape, and mostly just makes a lot of people
hate Anaconda because it's keeping the freeze going.
Yeah, I don't think it's helped, either. FWIW I voted against it, and
I voted against the schedule, because I don't think it allows us the
time to make large changes like this without the serious problems we're
seeing now.
--
Peter