On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 19:00, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
> A simple way to encourage constructive input from users on both the
> state of play and providing more bug reports might be to regularly
> (perhaps even daily as soon as a significant update comes along) to
> post a list of all the bugs that are reported against the updates
> (both blockers and not). That might encourage people to report bugs,
> give people an idea of what kind of problems to expect during testing,
> feedback from users about what they consider blockers and what not,
> give users an idea about how close things are to being released. All
> of this information would then be useful for during the meetings to
> decide if the updates really are ready in the eyes of the end users.
We're already doing that (for the big updates like 4.4; we found it not
needed for the bugfix-only point releases), it's called a "tracker bug",
I was referring primarily to making it more visible on the mailing
lists. Being vocal to the users and testers may well create the same
in return. Obviously the purely testers will be aware of the tracker
bugs (me included). I don't think there is anything wrong with the
current way. Making it more visible by highlighting the list of bugs
to the KDE testers might however draw in a few extra people and
improve the feeling of openness about the updates even more than
already. It was merely an extension of the current ideas as Rex
appeared to be requesting.
> In my opinion most of fesco has lost it's mind even
> recent suggestions. Please don't destroy one of Fedora's greatest
> strengths for the sake of some morons who want Fedora to be RedHat
> with a different colored hat... I am getting fed up of Fedora's latest
> identity crisis and if the KDE SIG just turns into a sheep then that
> would be the last straw for me.
Let me be clear: while it is not my intention at all to be a "sheep" and
while I'm strongly opposing that sort of policies, if FESCo were to mandate
that all Fedora updates may only be to bugfix releases (or worse, that new
upstream versions are not allowed in updates at all), KDE SIG would not be
in a position to do something else (in the official Fedora updates; of
course, kde-redhat is a different story and kde-redhat stable might carry
the updates Fedora doesn't want anymore). Ignoring the policy would not be a
workable solution, it could lead to the updates getting rejected or other
sanctions and it'd also confuse users (e.g. "Why is 4.4.0 in the updates,
the policy says such updates are not allowed?"). So the only thing we can do
is to try to prevent such a policy from being passed in the first place.
Sorry. That was perhaps rather strongly worded. I was not suggesting
going against policies if they are mandated. My complaint about sheep
was towards the option of defering. Not the act of following what is
mandated if such policies are passed. Until such stuff is mandated
(hopefully never) everything should be done the right way. Not what
fesco currently seems to be considering.
What i said about leaving Fedora behind if such policies are passed
though and my views towards those members on fesco who are even
considering these policies do however very much stand and i hope that
such policies are never passed. It would be a real shame for an
otherwise brilliant distribution and a waste of some great KDE
packagers who are currently doing an excellent job. My current views
towards the suggested policies and the fesco members considering such
policies do however probably belong in another thread.
devel mailing list
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand binary
and those who don't...