Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
Wed Sep 15 11:40:42 UTC 2010


On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 01:05 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:

> Nice move.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Why do we have the blocker bugs scheme if it apparently is irrelevant
> for final decisions?

I can't talk about how FESCo makes decisions, but I can talk about the
blocker bug process. It's important to note that the blocker bug process
and the feature process are separate. Blocker bugs are a QA thing and
they arise out of the release criteria: we take the code that's in the
repositories as of right now, build images out of it, test those, see if
they comply with the release criteria, and if they don't, we file bugs
which become blocker bugs (or we mark bugs filed by other testers as
blocker bugs).

The feature process, including the acceptance or rejection of features
by FESCo, is a *separate* process, it is not part of the release
validation / blocker bug process, and it's not really integrated with
it. There isn't some direct relationship between having open blockers
against a feature (or not) and that feature being rejected (or
accepted): FESCo makes its decision on grounds which I expect are
described in the feature process, somewhere, which may be wider (or
narrower...) than just whether the feature causes problems with the
release criteria at any moment in time.

> This is a really unfriendly move: I cannot win a game where the moment the
> game nears it ends completely new rules are created. Quite frankly, this
> is a recipe to piss people off, not to make people love developing for
> Fedora. Yes, I am very disappointed, Fedora. 

I don't think it helps anyone to personalize this decision or talk about
it as a 'game' you have to 'win'. Whether or not you think FESCo made
the right decision, I don't see any indication in the meeting logs that
they treated it as a game or as some kind of personal conflict. Their
job was simply to decide if it would be best for the project to accept
the feature into F14, or delay it to F15. They decided (quite narrowly)
that it'd be safer to delay it to F15. They didn't do anything to
indicate any kind of personal animosity, they didn't say it was a bad
feature or badly coded, or anything like that. They just looked at the
whole situation and decided that overall it would be a bit safer to wait
until F15 before going with systemd.

> It's also nice to not even bother to ping me for the FESCO
> discussion. This all reads like a page from the book "How to piss people
> off and scare them away in 7 days". You make up new rules, and then
> don't bother to invite the folks mostky affected when you apply them.
> 
> Oh, and next time, if you guys plan a move like that, then please do it
> a couple of weeks earlier, so that I can find funnier things to do then
> make you folks happy, since that's apparently not possible.

Again it's not great to personalize this, but FWIW I agree with both
points: it was a mistake not to contact you directly to see if you
wanted to attend the meeting, and I definitely agree that it would have
been better to take the decision earlier. FESCo's been discussing it
without much urgency since last week, and that discussion always gave us
(QA) the vague impression they were going to approve it, and we actually
told them that it'd be quite hard to revert to upstart after Beta TC1
went out and just about impossible to do it after Beta RC1 went out, but
they still decided to go ahead and require a reversion two days before
the deadline for Beta RC1 to be rolled, which *really* isn't optimal and
leaves us scrambling to make sure the reversion will be done well enough
to not leave the RC1 DOA. It would definitely have been much better to
decide this last week.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net



More information about the devel mailing list