Anaconda is totally trashing the F18 schedule (was Re: f18: how to install into a LVM partitions (or RAID))

[Dennis Gilmore]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

El Mon, 5 Nov 2012 08:39:54 +0100
drago01 <drago01 at gmail.com> escribió:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:57 AM, Dennis Gilmore <dennis at ausil.us>
> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > El Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:59:54 -0700
> > Jesse Keating <jkeating at j2solutions.net> escribió:
> >> On 10/31/2012 09:56 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >> > * Jesse Keating, Jeremy Katz, and others who helped shape the
> >> > current policy and theory of our release schedule felt that the 6
> >> > month release cycle was fine but that certain features were going
> >> > to take longer to develop. Those would need to be developed and
> >> > not enter into Fedora until they were close enough that they
> >> > could be completed during that cycle.
> >> >    - No matter what we do to try and increase the development
> >> > cycle within a release, there's always going to be issues that
> >> > take longer than the release that we need to deal with.
> >> > Perhaps, we just need to be better about making people follow
> >> > this model.
> >>
> >> I'm not entirely sure what I felt then, but I'm certainly open to a
> >> longer release cycle.  In fact I'm very much in favor of one, one
> >> that puts more time between "feature complete" and the actual alpha
> >> release. All too often we see features crash land right at the
> >> deadline, and any software that has to integrate across a lot of
> >> pieces (like anaconda) gets stuck trying to account for all these
> >> changes in a very limited time frame, only to be hindered quickly
> >> by a freeze process.
> >
> > I really do not object to a longer release cycle.  I am also open to
> > making feature freeze being 4-6 weeks before Alpha change freeze.
> > The risk we run is people land new features anyway. but we run that
> > today. We always have a run of things late. People need to land
> > changes earlier  the bigger the change the earlier it needs to
> > land.  Maybe it wont be a popular idea but having feature freeze at
> > previous release time is needed. What I am thinking is:
> >
> > Branch as we do, which opens up development for next release same as
> > we do today, so in the current cycle when we branched off f18, f19
> > features needed to start landing so all that would be taken for f18
> > is bug fix and integration fixes.  when we release f18 we hit F19
> > feature freeze.
> 
> That does not work because we do not have unlimited resources ... you
> can't expect people to work on F19 features at the same time while
> they are trying to get F18 ready for release.
> Honestly I don't think that the current issues have anything to do
> with the schedule but more with the way we handled the anaconda
> feature. We should just fix that and not try to make random changes
> all over the place.
When you doing the major work earlier the work to get the polish and
fix the unforeseen issues is smaller, i don't envisage that it needs
more resources just a change in focus and how we do things.

> 
> Basically there should not be any "this cannot be reverted" (there is
> no such thing really) features. If it is evident before the feature
> freeze that a given feature would not be ready in time we have to punt
> it to the next release PERIOD.

realistically most features cant be reverted easily.  and people will
do and say anything to not have them reverted. often the work to punt
the brokenness is the same as to fix it. the sooner we freeze features
the more time we have to fix the fallout. 

Dennis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlCYm7QACgkQkSxm47BaWfftyQCguB9b7tonxviCmXo957I2ZCY3
gZcAn0DoZ/bnNmJdyURL0It69dbUSBp6
=V+xv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----