New bodhi release in production

[Jaroslav Reznik]

On Friday, August 13, 2010 03:10:46 am Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I wrote:
> > But FWIW, when it comes to KDE in particular, the whole thing is moot or
> > soon to be moot anyway because parts of KDE are now being redefined as
> > "critical path", resulting in even more annoying update policies, even
> > though there was clear consensus in KDE SIG that such policies are
> > neither necessary for nor of any benefit to KDE. FESCo just asked us to
> > come up with a list of critical KDE packages and shut up. So we did. (My
> > proposal to submit an empty list was voted down in KDE SIG on the
> > grounds of being against the spirit of what FESCo asked of us, even
> > though it did get some support due to our objections to the critical
> > path process as a whole.) We (KDE SIG) have been more or less forced to
> > participate in a process most of us (and me in particular) do not agree
> > with and consider outright harmful.
> 
> PS:
> 
> 1. The critical path update rules (and thus also the clause in the general
> update rules which references them) were initially defined as requiring
> only 1 proventester to approve. (This was left somewhat vague in the
> actual policy, but 1 proventester was what was mentioned in all the
> discussion inside FESCo.) This was modified to 1 proventester + 1 other
> tester to match existing practice for freezes (the Critical Path Policy
> implemented as part of No Frozen Rawhide). FESCo never actually voted to
> approve that change, it was single-handedly made in the wiki by one
> person. This makes this policy much more of a PITA than it could have
> been. It also shows that we aren't even trusting PROVEN testers to
> reliably test a package! This is really ridiculous!
> 
> 2. FESCo also rejected an amendment I suggested to make sure that the
> proventesters group should include at least one member of each of the main
> 4 desktops' SIGs. And in fact, no KDE SIG member was included in the
> initial proventesters seed, despite Rex Dieter:
> (i) having applied WEEKS before the proventesters group was seeded and
> (ii) having YEARS of experience with approving freeze overrides, as he had
> been processing freeze override requests all over the years in the old rel-
> eng-Trac-ticket-based process.
> This really hurts the abilities of SIGs to self-organize, instead promoting
> a kind of centralized power distribution which just does not scale to our
> evergrowing distribution. If you want KDE to be considered critical path,
> you also have to allow KDE people to approve critical path packages. (In
> fact, I think we actually need much more than one KDE proventester in the
> long run.) And likewise for XFCE and LXDE.

Indeed - we need at least two proventesters for our purposes. And if others 
don't trust our testing - provide Plasma Desktop testers for us ;-) Or let 
exchange proventesters, we can test Desktop spin, you can test Plasma Desktop 
spin - for objectivity. But we desperetely need proventesters once we're on the 
list. I agreed to provide correct critical path list for Plasma Desktop as I 
think it's really good idea but current situation is really very sad :( And as I 
remember noone asked if we want to update the list after the policy was set - I 
would vote against including Plasma Desktop in this kind implementation of 
critical pathset. But I shut down - my fault I missed FESCo elections deadline, 
next time ;-)

Jaroslav

> IMHO, FESCo should be abolished, Fedora needs to be ruled by the SIGs!
> 
>         Kevin Kofler

-- 
Jaroslav Řezník <jreznik at redhat.com>
Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

Office: +420 532 294 275
Mobile: +420 602 797 774
Red Hat, Inc.                               http://cz.redhat.com/