PROPOSAL: Core size reduction "bug day"

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 13:41, Warren Togami wrote:
> Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > On Sat, 2004-07-24 at 04:25, Warren Togami wrote:
> > 
> >>Know that there may also be benefits to moving KDE to Extras.
> >>* Red Hat does not emphasize enigneering work on KDE.  Most of the RH 
> >>desktop team works mainly on GNOME.
> >>* As a result our KDE is always not as good as it could be.
> >>* Community members care about KDE.
> >>* Thus community members would do a better job of providing a more 
> >>polished KDE experience in Fedora.
> > 
> > 
> > You are assuming here that the Core/Extras split is defined by "Red Hat
> > maintains Core" and "community maintains Extras" - I don't know if
> > that's a given. More people helping maintain the Core KDE packages
> > wouldn't be a bad thing, though of course everyone has to have a similar
> > vision for the packages, it wouldn't work too well if kdebase and
> > kdelibs maintainers were having CVS commit wars. ;-)
> > 
> > Personally I would not want to move KDE to Extras, at least with the
> > current de facto definition of Core as "stuff relatively more people
> > want to use" and Extras as "stuff relatively few people are clamoring
> > for." Fedora isn't a commercially supported product and part of the
> > reason for that is to let us include more stuff that people like.
> > It's also targeted toward a techie audience and having choice of
> > desktops is a pretty geek friendly thing.
> > 
> > Havoc
> 
> I was not advocating the moving of KDE to Extras, but I know that 
> certain higher-up-manager-types have proposed it.
Well, that might be appropriate for RHEL, but as far as FC/FE is
concerned I find this to be a strong indication about these persons to
forget about one essential thing: 

"The audience these distributions are addressing"

RHEL: Enterprizes
FC/FE: TBD?

Many users having migrated to FC/FE from RHL will expect FC+FE to be
"focused on desktop applications", others will expect FC+FE to be a
"universal"/"can contain everything" distribution,  others will see it
as a chance to get "the SW into a distribution they had ever wanted to
be in, but has never made it".

>   Your last two posts 
> indicating that Core should not be equal to RHEL is a view that I 
> totally favor.
ACK. Cf. above. If not, Core will be some sort of "RHEL-beta". This
might be something RH's management has in mind, but I'd expect this to
be little useful to the general public and therefore to be  doomed to
fail.

> I would agree that we should instead try to get the KDE-RedHat and 
> external people more involved in improving the Core KDE packages. 

ACK. IMO, you have just tripped over what I think is the cause of most
problems  currently being discussed:

Many RH's developers/packagers/maintainers and RH as a whole still seem
stick to a "RH centric development model" and have not really opened up
to a more "open development model".

Ralf