On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 02:10:25PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Paul W. Frields
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 08:44:50AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid(a)gmail.com>
>> > On 05/27/2010 12:15 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> >> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:37:48 +0100,
>> >> Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> WooHoo... nearly 2 days after the release and there's still no
>> >>> of the Moblin spin. I'm not going to yell and scream like some
>> >>> about their spin but it would be nice to see some kind of update as
>> >>> why its still missing? I don't see that request as being
>> >>> after all I feel I put as much work into my spin and it can't
>> >>> feel to me a little unfair and disappointed. If it was some other
>> >>> all hell would have broken lose.
>> >> I think that would depend on which spin. This isn't the first time
>> >> bad has happened with a spin. I don't remember hell breaking loose
>> >> past.
>> >> Certainly it is unfortunate and disappointing that it happened.
>> > I have long since advocated that spin owners be granted access in Fedora
>> > infrastructure to compose their own spins and release engineering not
>> > take this role. The current method is simply not scaling well and we
>> > have seen enough proof of that by now.
>> I'm not sure the pros and cons to the above, or whether there's
>> something as basic as access to signing keys that might restrict that.
>> I'm quite happy for the infra team to deal with it, generally they've
>> done a sterling job and I hope to see Moblin spin shortly, pity its
>> well behind the watershed and the MeeGo 1 release will no doubt dampen
>> down the effect but that is life.
>> What I would like is a much better defined spin process. I've been
>> involved in the spin process for 2 releases now, managed to miss the
>> boat with F-12 because there was no where on the spin process and no
>> prior announcements to cut off dates. I actually made it in with 2
>> spins this process (maintain moblin, co-maintain sugar on a stick) but
>> it was certainly not without issues.
> I agree that the spin process and ownership is in an unclear state. I
> asked two questions in my original message that are unanswered, and I
> think Spins SIG members must answer to improve the situation:
> (1) Who is responsible for gathering schedule and report the changes
> needed -- actionable tasks, who does them, and the start and end
> (2) What are the unclear areas of the process, and what are the
> suggestions for fixing them? (Note I already cleared up one area, but
> surely there are others as Peter notes.)
> A "fire and forget" approach once Spins are accepted doesn't
> the health and smooth operation of a SIG. It's important for all the
> SIG members to help their fellows and the group by participating in a
> review of the process and making it easier to follow.
Thank you Paul appreciated. What is the status of actually getting the
Moblin spin up on s.fp.o? Its been 2 days and its still not there.
Fixing of the process is needed for F-14 but at the moment the 100s of
hours of work I have done for F-13 is still not available and I'm not
Let's check with Jesse when he's around -- it's still early in his
timezone and he may not be at the keyboard yet. He said yesterday he
was working on spinning the ISOs.
Originally I was intending this thread to be a general one where we
could collaborate on finding improvements to the spins process page
and a schedule that would help Spins SIG members manage that process.
At the same time, I agree we want to make the Moblin spin available,
but I'm worried we're obscuring this particular thread and once we fix
the immediate problem, it might die and we won't solve the more
Should I just start a separate thread to make that clearer?
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
- - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com