On Tue, 2019-01-29 at 14:31 -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 05:42, Matthew Miller
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 06:41:26PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > This feels more like system-wide change…
> > > Especially since you say that some extra packages will be retired.
> > A very limited set. The distro as a whole should not be impacted by this.
> > The retired packages are legacy cruft. And the important stuff that
> > needs to be updated needs some motivation like this.
> "This change needs to motivate other important stuff that we don't have
> direct control over to change" seems like *exactly* the reason we ask for
> system-wide changes to be filed earlier.
This is like the 4th system wide change this release which is coming in as
a Self-Contained. Each time the developer thinks it is self-contained
because it is just one little thing, but on regards it turns into being a
system-wide change. However because the two deadlines are one after the
other, it means that this change is pushed out another 6 months where the
3-4 weeks between System-Wide and Self-Contained doesn't seem very long.
Can we either:
I feel like this is a bit of a side track, when the fundamental point
here should be: "the week of the mass rebuild" seems rather late to
propose "hey let's try retiring yum again and see what breaks this time
and if we can get it fixed". I would've been all in favour of doing
that, say, a month ago. I'm less in favour of doing it now when we're
down to less than three weeks to branching. I do take the argument
relating to Python 2 deprecation...but that was known about long ago.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora