Slipping F21

[drago01]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at redhat.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 06/11/2014 10:56 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
>> On 06/11/2014 04:37 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>> I forgot to open a ticket over the last week, but the Server WG
>>> has identified that completion of its core task (the Server Role
>>> API) is likely to need a little extra time. This is a blocker to
>>> release, so we figured it would be best to ask FESCo to modify
>>> the schedule in advance, rather than forcing a slip at the end.
>>>
>>> I'll bring this up in Open Floor, unless you want to add it to
>>> the formal agenda.
>>
>> How much time do you think you'd need to complete the Server Role
>> API?
>
> We were planning to ask for two additional weeks on the schedule. We
> are not really expecting to get all of it.
>
>
>>
>> With my Workstation WG hat on, I'd very much like to avoid pushing
>> back the schedule. We already skipped one whole release; if we slip
>> F21 it's going to negatively impact how users perceive the
>> Workstation, and make it harder for Workstation developers to work
>> on the code upstream.
>>
>
> I agree, we don't want to slip much at all. I probably should have
> been clearer about the amount of slip we were going to ask for in the
> mail.
>
>
>> At the very least, please don't do a quick decision on today's IRC
>> meeting and allow some time to discuss this with other WGs.
>>
>> An alternative to slipping would also be to skip Server this
>> release cycle if it's not ready. Could try again in 6 months.
>>
>
> This would be a significant overreaction, I think.

That's why I didn't like those "nuke clauses" in change requests i.e
if the feature is not done only ship the other features but the server
wg decided that there whole product is pointless without that feature.