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

Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot at
Wed Sep 15 20:18:57 UTC 2010

Le mercredi 15 septembre 2010 à 12:40 +0200, drago01 a écrit :
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:27 PM, M A Young <m.a.young at> wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, drago01 wrote:

> > I agree. I was worried when systemd appeared in F14 just before the alpha.
> > Really we should have been much closer to where we are now at the start of
> > the alpha phase, and systemd should have gone in soon after F13 was forked
> > off.
> IIRC systemd wasn't even written back then.

While I like systemd and will continue to try to identify bugs and
report them so they get fixed before the next evaluation phase, I've
always felt that it was quite unreasonable to try to push it in F14
given when it was published. I would have taken a small miracle for it
to be integrated properly in such a short time.

Core invasive features need to be pushed in devel at branch time and
mature a full cycle. The cycle starts when the previous release is
branched and rawhide is freed, not when the target release is branched
from rawhide. The time between two branchings is not lost eats-babies
no-one-cares-about period it's there for people who need
heavy/complex/thorough testing post-branch phase can no provide (it's
way too short).

Here the problem is not F14 branch time but rather unreasonable
expectations (try to force feed a major change on the eve of branching
and alpha composing; if you're late you're late, just target the next

Also, I would like to thank all the other Fedora packagers that kept
quiet and tried to give systemd its chance. Because systemd has
mobilized a lot of testing energy early in F14 cycle, and cannibalized
resources other components could have reasonably expected to have a
bigger share of. Thanks all for your support of Lennart in time of need.

Nicolas Mailhot

More information about the devel mailing list