how to make things better(tm)

[Kevin Kofler]

John5342 wrote:
> A simple way to encourage constructive input from users on both the
> state of play and providing more bug reports might be to regularly
> (perhaps even daily as soon as a significant update comes along) to
> post a list of all the bugs that are reported against the updates
> (both blockers and not). That might encourage people to report bugs,
> give people an idea of what kind of problems to expect during testing,
> feedback from users about what they consider blockers and what not,
> give users an idea about how close things are to being released. All
> of this information would then be useful for during the meetings to
> decide if the updates really are ready in the eyes of the end users.

We're already doing that (for the big updates like 4.4; we found it not 
needed for the bugfix-only point releases), it's called a "tracker bug", see 
e.g.:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=kde-4.4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=533921&hide_resolved=0

> In my opinion most of fesco has lost it's mind even contemplating the
> recent suggestions. Please don't destroy one of Fedora's greatest
> strengths for the sake of some morons who want Fedora to be RedHat
> with a different colored hat... I am getting fed up of Fedora's latest
> identity crisis and if the KDE SIG just turns into a sheep then that
> would be the last straw for me.

Let me be clear: while it is not my intention at all to be a "sheep" and 
while I'm strongly opposing that sort of policies, if FESCo were to mandate 
that all Fedora updates may only be to bugfix releases (or worse, that new 
upstream versions are not allowed in updates at all), KDE SIG would not be 
in a position to do something else (in the official Fedora updates; of 
course, kde-redhat is a different story and kde-redhat stable might carry 
the updates Fedora doesn't want anymore). Ignoring the policy would not be a 
workable solution, it could lead to the updates getting rejected or other 
sanctions and it'd also confuse users (e.g. "Why is 4.4.0 in the updates, 
the policy says such updates are not allowed?"). So the only thing we can do 
is to try to prevent such a policy from being passed in the first place.

        Kevin Kofler