Dear Proposed Feature Owners,
The following feature pages are in CategoryProposedFedora9 which indicates that the feature owner is requesting that FESCo vote on them at the next meeting. I have not raised these features to FESCo for a vote because certain parts of the pages are incomplete and it doesn't make sense for FESCo to review a feature when all the information is not present.
1) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GCC4.3 -- need a link to owner contact information; contingency plan and release notes sections are blank; need to discuss impact on mass rebuild of Fedora 9 (2008-01-02)
2) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/EFI -- a few sections still need to be completed (2007-01-14)
3) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/JigdoRelease -- some of the TBDs need to be completed, particularly "contingency plan" and "dependencies" (2008-01-03)
4) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureEncryptedFilesystems -- documentation and release notes sections are empty (2008-01-14)
In addition, the following features are targeted for Fedora 9 in their writeup, but are not in CategoryProposedFedora9. If you have no intention of completing them for Fedora 9, please remove Fedora 9 as the targeted release so that there is no confusion that it will not be in Fedora 9. These features will never be raised for acceptance by FESCo.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureXULRunner http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureVolumeControl http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureRPMYumEnhancements http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NewGdm http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/RandrSupport http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ChristophWickert/FedoraLite http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureFirstboot http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SecurityAudit http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/PreUpgrade http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NetworkManager-MobileBroadband http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/HandwritingRecognizer
Thank you, John
_______________________________________________ Fedora-devel-announce mailing list Fedora-devel-announce@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-announce
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 03:49:21PM -0800, John Poelstra wrote:
In addition, the following features are targeted for Fedora 9 in their writeup, but are not in CategoryProposedFedora9. If you have no intention of completing them for Fedora 9, please remove Fedora 9 as the targeted release so that there is no confusion that it will not be in Fedora 9. These features will never be raised for acceptance by FESCo.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureXULRunner http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NewGdm
So what happens if these never get officially "accepted" as Fedora 9 features? Do we rip out XULRunner and back down to the old GDM? Who is going to enforce that?
Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 03:49:21PM -0800, John Poelstra wrote:
In addition, the following features are targeted for Fedora 9 in their writeup, but are not in CategoryProposedFedora9. If you have no intention of completing them for Fedora 9, please remove Fedora 9 as the targeted release so that there is no confusion that it will not be in Fedora 9. These features will never be raised for acceptance by FESCo.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureXULRunner http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NewGdm
So what happens if these never get officially "accepted" as Fedora 9 features? Do we rip out XULRunner and back down to the old GDM? Who is going to enforce that?
This is a good point. A couple of these features have kind of happened anyway, and are now easier to run with than they are to revert. What do we do about this?
--CJD
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:16:34 -0500 Casey Dahlin cjdahlin@ncsu.edu wrote:
So what happens if these never get officially "accepted" as Fedora 9 features? Do we rip out XULRunner and back down to the old GDM? Who is going to enforce that?
This is a good point. A couple of these features have kind of happened anyway, and are now easier to run with than they are to revert. What do we do about this?
Well, depends on the feature really. When we talked about this last time we said we'd handle it on a case by case basis. I feel that xul and gdm really just needs the feature owner to fill in some blanks to complete the feature so that we have stuff to properly tout and shout and beat Ubuntu to the punch with.
On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 21:16 -0500, Casey Dahlin wrote:
Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 03:49:21PM -0800, John Poelstra wrote:
In addition, the following features are targeted for Fedora 9 in their writeup, but are not in CategoryProposedFedora9. If you have no intention of completing them for Fedora 9, please remove Fedora 9 as the targeted release so that there is no confusion that it will not be in Fedora 9. These features will never be raised for acceptance by FESCo.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureXULRunner http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NewGdm
So what happens if these never get officially "accepted" as Fedora 9 features? Do we rip out XULRunner and back down to the old GDM? Who is going to enforce that?
This is a good point. A couple of these features have kind of happened anyway, and are now easier to run with than they are to revert. What do we do about this?
We are not at feature freeze time yet, so it is not time to talk about reverting anything yet. Also, not being accepted is not the same as being rejected to the point of reversal. First and foremost it means that the feature will not be touted as one of the major breakthroughs of F9.
Looking at the two features that have been cited, we have every intention to finish them for F9. I assume that finishing the feature itself takes priority over keeping the wiki page uptodate...
Chuck Anderson said the following on 01/23/2008 06:00 PM Pacific Time:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 03:49:21PM -0800, John Poelstra wrote:
In addition, the following features are targeted for Fedora 9 in their writeup, but are not in CategoryProposedFedora9. If you have no intention of completing them for Fedora 9, please remove Fedora 9 as the targeted release so that there is no confusion that it will not be in Fedora 9. These features will never be raised for acceptance by FESCo.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureXULRunner http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NewGdm
So what happens if these never get officially "accepted" as Fedora 9 features? Do we rip out XULRunner and back down to the old GDM? Who is going to enforce that?
NOTHING. They stay there indefinitely. The important distinction here is that these features are in *CategoryProposedFeature*--which means they are NOT being proposed for acceptance for a release.
I have been raising them here to bring attention to them because some people have not followed the complete process described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy and had thought their feature was on the radar for acceptance to Fedora 9.
For the Fedora 10 development process I will not send out these notifications as hopefully by then we will all understand the process :)
John
John Poelstra schrieb:
Dear Proposed Feature Owners,
The following feature pages are in CategoryProposedFedora9 which indicates that the feature owner is requesting that FESCo vote on them at the next meeting. I have not raised these features to FESCo for a vote because certain parts of the pages are incomplete and it doesn't make sense for FESCo to review a feature when all the information is not present.
...
documentation and release notes sections are empty (2008-01-14)
I've added / moved some stuff to the documentation section and added some release notes.
Karsten
-
Casey Dahlin -
Chuck Anderson -
Jesse Keating -
John Poelstra -
Karsten Hopp -
Matthias Clasen