On 02/06/2017 08:38 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 09:12:26PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> * Why is it not proposed for F26 (now the deadline is over, but IMHO it
>> should get in)?
>
> Since the plan has always been (as that page shows) to get it into F25,
> which would not make it a F26 change.
There's a big Change process question here which I think FESCo should
resolve. If a Change does not meet the deadline, should it be released
as an update, automatically retargetted for the next release, or need
to be re-proposed? I think probably all answers of these possibilities
are appropriate for some cases; maybe we should make "if you didn't
make the deadlines, please run past fesco for what to do next" part of
the process.
This is supposed to be part of the original proposal, specifically the
contingency mechanism. In this Change Proposal, that reads:
"Contingency mechanism: Mesa remains as the system libGL implementation;
libglvnd is rebuilt to filter out the Provides for the library so as not to
conflict."
With my FESCo hat on, I'd read that as "Mesa is the libGL implementation for the
life of F25, but libglvnd is made available in a non-conflicting location for
testing purposes". In this case, the appropriate thing was for the system
default to be left untouched until Fedora 26.
The Contingency Mechanism is meant to describe what will happen for Fedora 25's
entire lifetime. If the Change Owners had intended a late landing, that should
have been written there clearly so that FESCo could have made a ruling with that
in mind.
Perhaps we need to provide some more clear guidance in the comments for the
Contingency section on the template to avoid this in the future.