9:08 a.m.
Hi,
I have a couple of questions concerning xulrunner packaging:
1. How's the work on xulrunner going (if there is someone who works on
it)?
2. Is it targeted on F8 or not?
3. Why is it not mentioned on wiki[1]?
Thanks,
Martin
reference:
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/8/FeatureList
9:34 a.m.
Martin Sourada wrote:
Hi,
I have a couple of questions concerning xulrunner packaging:
1. How's the work on xulrunner going (if there is someone who works on
it)?
2. Is it targeted on F8 or not?
3. Why is it not mentioned on wiki[1]?
Thanks,
Martin
reference:
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/8/FeatureList
I think I noticed that
more than one person had begun developing the
packages, and hence you should be able to find it in bugzilla {review
request}
DaveT.
10:05 a.m.
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 16:34 +0200, David Timms wrote:
I think I noticed that more than one person had begun developing the
packages, and hence you should be able to find it in bugzilla {review
request}
DaveT.
Well, I've found one [1]. The package was accepted, however it's
targeted on OLPC-2 branch, while I was asking about Fedora 8... Any
info?
Thanks,
Martin
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244374
9:36 a.m.
Hi,
On 6/27/07, Martin Sourada <martin.sourada(a)seznam.cz> wrote:
Hi,
I have a couple of questions concerning xulrunner packaging:
1. How's the work on xulrunner going (if there is someone who works on
it)?
2. Is it targeted on F8 or not?
AFAIK its targeted for OLPC-2 branch.
3. Why is it not mentioned on wiki[1]?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OlpcFedoraPartnership
Thanks,
Martin
reference:
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/8/FeatureList
Regards,
Parag.
11:07 a.m.
Christopher Aillon wrote:
Martin Sourada wrote:
> 1. How's the work on xulrunner going (if there is someone who works on
> it)?
Good.
> 2. Is it targeted on F8 or not?
Yes.
> 3. Why is it not mentioned on wiki[1]?
Shrug.
It would be better to write down the details in the wiki rather than
shrugging it off. We would like to depend on it for the release notes
for example rather than trying to parse change logs to get the important
changes from thousands of packages as being done currently.
Rahul
11:07 a.m.
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
> Martin Sourada wrote:
>> 1. How's the work on xulrunner going (if there is someone who works on
>> it)?
>
> Good.
>
>> 2. Is it targeted on F8 or not?
>
> Yes.
>
>> 3. Why is it not mentioned on wiki[1]?
>
> Shrug.
It would be better to write down the details in the wiki rather than
shrugging it off. We would like to depend on it for the release notes
for example rather than trying to parse change logs to get the important
changes from thousands of packages as being done currently.
I was not aware that in writing things down on the wiki was a requisite
for work to get done... And for your information, I have been a
contributor to the past 3 or so release notes adding the important
changes that I have done to the notes. I don't blame you for failing to
notice.
11:35 a.m.
Christopher Aillon wrote:
I was not aware that in writing things down on the wiki was a
requisite
for work to get done...
This is sort of a anticipated response but writing things down on the
wiki *is part* of getting the work done. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JohnPoelstra/FeaturePolicyDraft
And for your information, I have been a
contributor to the past 3 or so release notes adding the important
changes that I have done to the notes. I don't blame you for failing to
notice.
Umm, I did notice since I watch wiki edits which is why I suggested it
as a factor but there are other good reasons to use the wiki to describe
any major features. It would be helpful to know clearly the feature list
for Fedora 8 for Fedora ambassadors. IMO the effect of transparency
alone makes it worth the effort.
Rahul
11:38 a.m.
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
> I was not aware that in writing things down on the wiki was a
> requisite for work to get done...
This is sort of a anticipated response but writing things down on the
wiki *is part* of getting the work done. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JohnPoelstra/FeaturePolicyDraft
Thankfully, that's still a draft, or I'd have to edit the wiki page that
I was about to send you a reply... :-)
11:54 a.m.
Christopher Aillon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Christopher Aillon wrote:
>
>> I was not aware that in writing things down on the wiki was a
>> requisite for work to get done...
>
> This is sort of a anticipated response but writing things down on the
> wiki *is part* of getting the work done. See
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JohnPoelstra/FeaturePolicyDraft
Thankfully, that's still a draft, or I'd have to edit the wiki page that
I was about to send you a reply... :-)
It is waiting on FESCo ratification on the meeting tomorrow.
Rahul
11:48 a.m.
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 22:24 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Christopher Aillon wrote:
>>
>>> I was not aware that in writing things down on the wiki was a
>>> requisite for work to get done...
>>
>> This is sort of a anticipated response but writing things down on the
>> wiki *is part* of getting the work done. See
>>
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JohnPoelstra/FeaturePolicyDraft
>
> Thankfully, that's still a draft, or I'd have to edit the wiki page that
> I was about to send you a reply... :-)
It is waiting on FESCo ratification on the meeting tomorrow.
It doesn't make much sense to ratify such policies without asking for
feedback from the people who are subject to it first, if you ask me.
11:59 a.m.
Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 22:24 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Christopher Aillon wrote:
>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> Christopher Aillon wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was not aware that in writing things down on the wiki was a
>>>> requisite for work to get done...
>>> This is sort of a anticipated response but writing things down on the
>>> wiki *is part* of getting the work done. See
>>>
>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JohnPoelstra/FeaturePolicyDraft
>> Thankfully, that's still a draft, or I'd have to edit the wiki page that
>> I was about to send you a reply... :-)
> It is waiting on FESCo ratification on the meeting tomorrow.
It doesn't make much sense to ratify such policies without asking for
feedback from the people who are subject to it first, if you ask me.
Feedback was asked right in this list. Check the archives.
Rahul
11:58 a.m.
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 22:29 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 22:24 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Christopher Aillon wrote:
>>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>>> Christopher Aillon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I was not aware that in writing things down on the wiki was a
>>>>> requisite for work to get done...
>>>> This is sort of a anticipated response but writing things down on the
>>>> wiki *is part* of getting the work done. See
>>>>
>>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JohnPoelstra/FeaturePolicyDraft
>>> Thankfully, that's still a draft, or I'd have to edit the wiki page
that
>>> I was about to send you a reply... :-)
>> It is waiting on FESCo ratification on the meeting tomorrow.
>
> It doesn't make much sense to ratify such policies without asking for
> feedback from the people who are subject to it first, if you ask me.
Feedback was asked right in this list. Check the archives.
I see that John asked for feedback 2 days ago, I don't see a single
reponse to that - do you really think that is sufficient discussion to
ratify this tomorrow ?!
12:11 p.m.
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 12:58 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 22:29 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 22:24 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >> Christopher Aillon wrote:
> >>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >>>> Christopher Aillon wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I was not aware that in writing things down on the wiki was a
> >>>>> requisite for work to get done...
> >>>> This is sort of a anticipated response but writing things down on
the
> >>>> wiki *is part* of getting the work done. See
> >>>>
> >>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JohnPoelstra/FeaturePolicyDraft
> >>> Thankfully, that's still a draft, or I'd have to edit the wiki
page that
> >>> I was about to send you a reply... :-)
> >> It is waiting on FESCo ratification on the meeting tomorrow.
> >
> > It doesn't make much sense to ratify such policies without asking for
> > feedback from the people who are subject to it first, if you ask me.
>
> Feedback was asked right in this list. Check the archives.
I see that John asked for feedback 2 days ago, I don't see a single
reponse to that - do you really think that is sufficient discussion to
ratify this tomorrow ?!
No.
josh
12:17 p.m.
Matthias Clasen wrote:
I see that John asked for feedback 2 days ago, I don't see a
single
reponse to that - do you really think that is sufficient discussion to
ratify this tomorrow ?!
John send the mail and the meeting agenda for FESCo has the item listed
again which provides alteast two different opportunities for folks to
provide any feedback necessary.
I send feedback via the wiki as asked in the earlier mail. Policies and
guidelines are living documents and can (or will) be updated based on
feedback if there is any even after they are ratified. Additional
discussions can happen at any point of time. I was merely pointing out
that feedback was indeed asked.
Rahul
12:25 p.m.
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Matthias Clasen wrote:
> I see that John asked for feedback 2 days ago, I don't see a single
> reponse to that - do you really think that is sufficient discussion to
> ratify this tomorrow ?!
John send the mail and the meeting agenda for FESCo has the item listed
again which provides alteast two different opportunities for folks to
provide any feedback necessary.
I send feedback via the wiki as asked in the earlier mail. Policies and
guidelines are living documents and can (or will) be updated based on
feedback if there is any even after they are ratified. Additional
discussions can happen at any point of time. I was merely pointing out
that feedback was indeed asked.
That makes no sense. Are you seriously telling me that you ratify
changes that may be sub-par with the intent that they can be changed?
What is the point of voting then? Just let any old change through and
fix it later.
Sounds like you need to revise your ratification process (or lack
thereof) before people should feel comfortable following anything that
gets "voted" on.
12:29 p.m.
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 13:25 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Matthias Clasen wrote:
>
>> I see that John asked for feedback 2 days ago, I don't see a single
>> reponse to that - do you really think that is sufficient discussion to
>> ratify this tomorrow ?!
>
> John send the mail and the meeting agenda for FESCo has the item listed
> again which provides alteast two different opportunities for folks to
> provide any feedback necessary.
>
> I send feedback via the wiki as asked in the earlier mail. Policies and
> guidelines are living documents and can (or will) be updated based on
> feedback if there is any even after they are ratified. Additional
> discussions can happen at any point of time. I was merely pointing out
> that feedback was indeed asked.
That makes no sense. Are you seriously telling me that you ratify
changes that may be sub-par with the intent that they can be changed?
What is the point of voting then? Just let any old change through and
fix it later.
No.
Sounds like you need to revise your ratification process (or lack
thereof) before people should feel comfortable following anything that
gets "voted" on.
Rahul isn't on FESCo. And I agree this needs more discussion before
being ratified.
josh
12:32 p.m.
Christopher Aillon wrote:
That makes no sense. Are you seriously telling me that you ratify
changes that may be sub-par with the intent that they can be changed?
No but policies can be ratified with the understanding that they are not
written in stone.
Sounds like you need to revise your ratification process (or lack
thereof) before people should feel comfortable following anything that
gets "voted" on.
That's a FESCo decision that I am not involved with.
Rahul
12:46 p.m.
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
> That makes no sense. Are you seriously telling me that you ratify
> changes that may be sub-par with the intent that they can be changed?
No but policies can be ratified with the understanding that they are not
written in stone.
> Sounds like you need to revise your ratification process (or lack
> thereof) before people should feel comfortable following anything that
> gets "voted" on.
That's a FESCo decision that I am not involved with.
I wonder if I'm the only person that got the impression you were
invovled with it based on your comments. Don't try to strongarm people
into following _draft_ policies based on the fact that you personally
_expect_ it to be ratified.
5:42 a.m.
Christopher Aillon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Christopher Aillon wrote:
>
>> That makes no sense. Are you seriously telling me that you ratify
>> changes that may be sub-par with the intent that they can be changed?
>
> No but policies can be ratified with the understanding that they are
> not written in stone.
>
>> Sounds like you need to revise your ratification process (or lack
>> thereof) before people should feel comfortable following anything
>> that gets "voted" on.
>
> That's a FESCo decision that I am not involved with.
I wonder if I'm the only person that got the impression you were
invovled with it based on your comments. Don't try to strongarm people
into following _draft_ policies based on the fact that you personally
_expect_ it to be ratified.
I am not personally involved with it. The policy is mostly documenting
the process that we have followed even in the previous release so I do
expect maintainers to take an effort to describe what the plans are.
Rahul
10:15 a.m.
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Christopher Aillon wrote:
>>
>>> That makes no sense. Are you seriously telling me that you ratify
>>> changes that may be sub-par with the intent that they can be changed?
>>
>> No but policies can be ratified with the understanding that they are
>> not written in stone.
>>
>>> Sounds like you need to revise your ratification process (or lack
>>> thereof) before people should feel comfortable following anything
>>> that gets "voted" on.
>>
>> That's a FESCo decision that I am not involved with.
>
> I wonder if I'm the only person that got the impression you were
> invovled with it based on your comments. Don't try to strongarm
> people into following _draft_ policies based on the fact that you
> personally _expect_ it to be ratified.
I am not personally involved with it. The policy is mostly documenting
the process that we have followed even in the previous release so I do
expect maintainers to take an effort to describe what the plans are.
This is not a big enough change to warrant that IMO though. It won't be
any more newsworthy than any other firefox release. It will be done
sooner rather than later. Probably by next week, although having to
send my status updates on a tiny project like this isn't helping me get
it done faster.
10:43 a.m.
On 6/28/07, Christopher Aillon <caillon(a)redhat.com> wrote:
This is not a big enough change to warrant that IMO though. It
won't be
any more newsworthy than any other firefox release.
Every firefox release is newsworthy, don't be so modest. How many
applications do firefox security updates end up breaking through
library dependencies? End-users definitely notice when a firefox
updates go out.... its always big news.
More seriously, the above quoted text gets to the heart of the problem
with a 'features' documentation policy. At the end of the day, the
group of people who define something as feature-worthy are going to
need to be the ones who keep the feature-level text updated. If a
maintainer doesn't 'see' this as feature worthy then expecting the
maintainer to keep that additional text updated will cause some
friction.
Personally I disagree with you about xulrunner. Several application
packages which currently depend on libraries inside firefox are going
to be positively impacted by the inclusion of xulrunner. Enough of
them to make xulrunner a big enough deal to make a little fuss over in
the next fedora release from an end-user perspective.
-jef
10:47 a.m.
On Thursday 28 June 2007 11:43:24 Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Personally I disagree with you about xulrunner. Several application
packages which currently depend on libraries inside firefox are going
to be positively impacted by the inclusion of xulrunner. Enough of
them to make xulrunner a big enough deal to make a little fuss over in
the next fedora release from an end-user perspective.
This is also another case where Fedora may be the first to "incur the pain" of
reworking our software for Xulrunner, and identifying things that need to be
change, potentially upstream. We need to be more proactive about touting
these things where we break ground and other distros just follow us through.
We often are the suckers who take all the pain and punishment, the other
distros just follow us through and say "look at how much better ours is!"
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
11:26 a.m.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thursday 28 June 2007 11:43:24 Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> Personally I disagree with you about xulrunner. Several application
> packages which currently depend on libraries inside firefox are going
> to be positively impacted by the inclusion of xulrunner. Enough of
> them to make xulrunner a big enough deal to make a little fuss over in
> the next fedora release from an end-user perspective.
This is also another case where Fedora may be the first to "incur the pain" of
reworking our software for Xulrunner, and identifying things that need to be
change, potentially upstream. We need to be more proactive about touting
these things where we break ground and other distros just follow us through.
We often are the suckers who take all the pain and punishment, the other
distros just follow us through and say "look at how much better ours is!"
Actually, I think the other big ones have taken the lead here and gotten
most of the work done. Pretty much all the apps that depend on it have
gotten fixed upstream already, and all I expect is for packagers to
switch from BuildRequires: gecko-devel = 1.8.0.13 to BuildRequires:
gecko-devel = 1.9.
11:56 a.m.
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 11:47:44AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
This is also another case where Fedora may be the first to
"incur the pain" of
reworking our software for Xulrunner, and identifying things that need to be
change, potentially upstream. We need to be more proactive about touting
these things where we break ground and other distros just follow us through.
We often are the suckers who take all the pain and punishment, the other
distros just follow us through and say "look at how much better ours is!"
Maybe not this time. Xulrunner has bee in gentoo for a little while
now and is getting more and more generalized. So hopefully the worst
is already behind.
OG.
11:56 a.m.
On Thursday 28 June 2007 12:56:02 Olivier Galibert wrote:
Maybe not this time. Xulrunner has bee in gentoo for a little while
now and is getting more and more generalized. So hopefully the worst
is already behind.
Granted, so while not this time, it /does/ happen, and it's good to be a bit
more wordy about it.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
12:02 p.m.
Olivier Galibert wrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 11:47:44AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> This is also another case where Fedora may be the first to "incur the pain"
of
> reworking our software for Xulrunner, and identifying things that need to be
> change, potentially upstream. We need to be more proactive about touting
> these things where we break ground and other distros just follow us through.
> We often are the suckers who take all the pain and punishment, the other
> distros just follow us through and say "look at how much better ours is!"
Maybe not this time. Xulrunner has bee in gentoo for a little while
now and is getting more and more generalized. So hopefully the worst
is already behind.
Merely being in the repository does not really count. Does other apps
like liferea built against it by default when you try to emerge them?
Rahul
1:13 p.m.
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 10:32:44PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Merely being in the repository does not really count. Does other apps
like liferea built against it by default when you try to emerge them?
*checking*, hmmm, supported but not compiled with it by default.
Damn. Too bad.
OG.
11:26 a.m.
Christopher Aillon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Christopher Aillon wrote:
>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> Christopher Aillon wrote:
>>>
>>>> That makes no sense. Are you seriously telling me that you ratify
>>>> changes that may be sub-par with the intent that they can be changed?
>>>
>>> No but policies can be ratified with the understanding that they are
>>> not written in stone.
>>>
>>>> Sounds like you need to revise your ratification process (or lack
>>>> thereof) before people should feel comfortable following anything
>>>> that gets "voted" on.
>>>
>>> That's a FESCo decision that I am not involved with.
>>
>> I wonder if I'm the only person that got the impression you were
>> invovled with it based on your comments. Don't try to strongarm
>> people into following _draft_ policies based on the fact that you
>> personally _expect_ it to be ratified.
>
> I am not personally involved with it. The policy is mostly documenting
> the process that we have followed even in the previous release so I do
> expect maintainers to take an effort to describe what the plans are.
This is not a big enough change to warrant that IMO though. It won't be
any more newsworthy than any other firefox release. It will be done
sooner rather than later. Probably by next week, although having to
send my status updates on a tiny project like this isn't helping me get
it done faster.
This goes to the heart of the problem. You don't consider the changes
important but it is. Firefox related changes are BIG news. How many
times were we asked when Firefox 2 was going to be in Fedora Core 6? I
must have answered it atleast half a dozen times. So many that I had to
write down a explanation on why and point users from several places to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Firefox2.
I also remember seeing posts in this list including the one which
started this discussion and other places asking about XULRunner. I
myself have done in fedora-maintainers list before. XULRunner is going
to affect about 50 applications in Fedora which uses Firefox for the
browser engine. We are likely the first distribution to do so and hence
would require explicit testing. I think that makes it a pretty major
change.
Rahul
1:28 p.m.
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> This is not a big enough change to warrant that IMO though. It
won't
> be any more newsworthy than any other firefox release. It will be
> done sooner rather than later. Probably by next week, although having
> to send my status updates on a tiny project like this isn't helping me
> get it done faster.
This goes to the heart of the problem. You don't consider the changes
important but it is. Firefox related changes are BIG news.
Please stop misinterpreting things. I never said it was not important.
I am saying that it is not any more important than going from 2.0.0.0
to 2.0.0.4. It will require an equivalent amount of work: this is
essentially just a version upgrade.
Almost all the upstreams I know that care about this have already been
supporting XULrunner for well over a year now, and Novell has shipped an
alpha version in their experimental branches, and Gentoo and I think
Ubuntu has shipped it, and believe it or not, upstream has been rather
good about helping projects work with XULRunner. It's finally in a
state where I'm ready to say it will cause little damage and that is why
it is going into Fedora now.
How many
times were we asked when Firefox 2 was going to be in Fedora Core 6? I
must have answered it atleast half a dozen times. So many that I had to
write down a explanation on why and point users from several places to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Firefox2.
And how many complaints have we had about metacity not doing enough to
suit people's uber configuration needs? Or about someone not liking a
theme or artwork? People will always find something to complain about
but I'm glad that I was at least able to help fulfill your wiki page
writing desires.
So fine. You win. Please put up a wiki page that says that XULRunner
will be included in the next week or so. My real deadline is July 12,
which is the day before I leave for GUADEC but I expect it sooner.
That's really all I have to say about it right now and I'd rather spend
time doing the work than writing up about it or wasting another second
on this thread.
11:34 p.m.
Christopher Aillon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> This is not a big enough change to warrant that IMO though. It won't
>> be any more newsworthy than any other firefox release. It will be
>> done sooner rather than later. Probably by next week, although
>> having to send my status updates on a tiny project like this isn't
>> helping me get it done faster.
>
> This goes to the heart of the problem. You don't consider the changes
> important but it is. Firefox related changes are BIG news.
Please stop misinterpreting things. I never said it was not important.
I am saying that it is not any more important than going from 2.0.0.0
to 2.0.0.4. It will require an equivalent amount of work: this is
essentially just a version upgrade.
This is amply different from being merely a version upgrade. That should
be evident by the amount of discussions within Fedora and in Mozilla.
People will always find something to complain about
but I'm glad that I was at least able to help fulfill your wiki
page
writing desires.
There will be always people critical of our work but that in many cases
helps us understand the things we need to change. No thanks to you for
demotivating sarcasm on efforts that were taken in part from helping you
avoid answering repetitive questions but let me clarify that I have no
inherent desires to write wiki pages.
So fine. You win. Please put up a wiki page that says that
XULRunner
will be included in the next week or so.
It was never about me winning. It was about having a planned and
transparent feature list.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/XULRunner
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/8/FeatureList
It happened to be "wiki pages" after all. I would appreciate if you can
quickly verify and make any changes required to the feature page.
Rahul
11:55 p.m.
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> This is not a big enough change to warrant that IMO though. It
>>> won't be any more newsworthy than any other firefox release. It
>>> will be done sooner rather than later. Probably by next week,
>>> although having to send my status updates on a tiny project like
>>> this isn't helping me get it done faster.
>>
>> This goes to the heart of the problem. You don't consider the changes
>> important but it is. Firefox related changes are BIG news.
>
> Please stop misinterpreting things. I never said it was not
> important. I am saying that it is not any more important than going
> from 2.0.0.0 to 2.0.0.4. It will require an equivalent amount of
> work: this is essentially just a version upgrade.
This is amply different from being merely a version upgrade. That should
be evident by the amount of discussions within Fedora and in Mozilla.
People will always find something to complain about
> but I'm glad that I was at least able to help fulfill your wiki page
> writing desires.
There will be always people critical of our work but that in many cases
helps us understand the things we need to change. No thanks to you for
demotivating sarcasm on efforts that were taken in part from helping you
avoid answering repetitive questions but let me clarify that I have no
inherent desires to write wiki pages.
> So fine. You win. Please put up a wiki page that says that XULRunner
> will be included in the next week or so.
It was never about me winning. It was about having a planned and
transparent feature list.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/XULRunner
This has been renamed to FeatureXULRunner for consistency.
Rahul
12:49 p.m.
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 12:48 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 22:24 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Christopher Aillon wrote:
> > Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >> Christopher Aillon wrote:
> >>
> >>> I was not aware that in writing things down on the wiki was a
> >>> requisite for work to get done...
> >>
> >> This is sort of a anticipated response but writing things down on the
> >> wiki *is part* of getting the work done. See
> >>
> >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JohnPoelstra/FeaturePolicyDraft
> >
> > Thankfully, that's still a draft, or I'd have to edit the wiki page
that
> > I was about to send you a reply... :-)
>
> It is waiting on FESCo ratification on the meeting tomorrow.
It doesn't make much sense to ratify such policies without asking for
feedback from the people who are subject to it first, if you ask me.
I believe John did send this proposal to the lists for feedback.
/B
--
Brian Pepple <bpepple(a)fedoraproject.org>
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
1:24 p.m.
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 21:37 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
> Martin Sourada wrote:
>> 1. How's the work on xulrunner going (if there is someone who works on
>> it)?
>
> Good.
>
>> 2. Is it targeted on F8 or not?
>
> Yes.
>
>> 3. Why is it not mentioned on wiki[1]?
>
> Shrug.
It would be better to write down the details in the wiki rather than
shrugging it off. We would like to depend on it for the release notes
for example rather than trying to parse change logs to get the important
changes from thousands of packages as being done currently.
If you've got time to chide the maintainer about it, you've got time to
help the maintainer and write down the details in the wiki yourself.
Just a thought.
-w
5:39 a.m.
Will Woods wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 21:37 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Christopher Aillon wrote:
>> Martin Sourada wrote:
>>> 1. How's the work on xulrunner going (if there is someone who works on
>>> it)?
>> Good.
>>
>>> 2. Is it targeted on F8 or not?
>> Yes.
>>
>>> 3. Why is it not mentioned on wiki[1]?
>> Shrug.
> It would be better to write down the details in the wiki rather than
> shrugging it off. We would like to depend on it for the release notes
> for example rather than trying to parse change logs to get the important
> changes from thousands of packages as being done currently.
If you've got time to chide the maintainer about it, you've got time to
help the maintainer and write down the details in the wiki yourself.
Just a thought.
How am I supposed to guess what the plans are? If maintainers don't tell
anyone else there is no chance for anyone else to participate or give
feedback.
Rahul
6154
days inactive
6156
days old
34 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
Brian Pepple -
Christopher Aillon -
Development discussions related to Fedora -
Jef Spaleta -
Jesse Keating -
Josh Boyer -
Martin Sourada -
Matthias Clasen -
Olivier Galibert -
Parag Nemade -
Rahul Sundaram -
Will Woods