Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
drago01 at gmail.com
Wed Sep 15 07:24:45 UTC 2010
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 3:52 AM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 01:05:34AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> So, we closed all blocker bugs, we worked through the vast majority of
>> other bugs. I dealt with almost all issues raised in Bill's list, only
>> few small issues left. While there are some bugs open, we did our
>> homework. I was kept in the impression during the last week that these
>> are the criteria to get systemd into F14. But what happens? Out of
>> nowhere completely new criteria are created, and used to bring this
>> project down.
> The criteria primarily flowed from Notting's discussion of systemd
> acceptance criteria. Was that well communicated beforehand? No. Did all
> of those criteria get translated into appropriate bugzilla entries? No.
> Should we have handled this case better? Absolutely yes.
I think the main point here wasn't "there are bugs #X, #Y and #Z that
can't be fixed in time so we should revert" but a "we have a bad
feeling / are nervous so lets revert" ... the later isn't really a
technical decision basis and can (and here it did) piss of the one
working on said feature.
(I know it wasn't *that* simple but that was mostly it).
The acceptance criteria should have been present from day one (i.e the
day the feature was accepted) not shortly before beta (which pretty
much limits the time to work to met them).
More information about the devel