Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2012-07-23)

["Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"]

On 07/24/2012 09:29 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johannbg at gmail.com) said:
>> On 07/24/2012 08:49 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>> Both this feature and yours, when first proposed, were suggested that
>>> changes go through FPC.
>> What exactly was I supposed to discuss with FPC?
> Standardization on the changes so it can be documented in the guidlines
> so people know what to do in their unit file. (such as around
> Documentation=, what fields are no longer necessary, etc.)

That's just laughable since afaik systemd would be the only program that 
is forced to go through these change and get the approvals from FPC 
while others simply get away with mentioning changes in upstream 
documentation.

I thought you guys meant the removal of the environment files that 
resides in /etc/sysconfig/ directory and that was why the feature was 
being rejected and mentioning that upstream needed some kind of upstream 
patching was just utter and total bullshit since putting environment 
files in /etc/sysconfig/$file is Fedora/RHEL specific and is the reason 
why upstream has been rejected our units when they have been submitted 
upstream...

Then you guys started to act like kids in candy store and cherry pick 
stuff from the feature requests well here's a news flash that wont work 
with me. When I submit features I will submit them as is, work on them 
as is and finish them myself as is ( although all help is always greatly 
appreciated and unlike others I give credit where credit is due ) I 
would be willing to add some other additional work that crosses path 
with mine to reduce work and speed up implementation of that relevant 
thing ( like the packaging preset feature does ) .

I ain't like so many other feature owners that just tag maintainers 
components in some bug report expect them do to all the work and then 
flag the feature 100% done before GA while at best it's half way there 
leaving someone else in the community to cleanup the remaining mess and 
us in QA to catch all the fallout from that in the process... 

With feature process which is as utterly broken like this, when I am 
forced to resubmit features that span over several release cycle again 
and again for no other purpose other then to waste people time because 
our feature process does not expect features to be able to span several 
release cycle and then you guys wonder why I did not resubmit the 
feature request lol...

JBG