/usrmove?

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 02/09/2012 11:06 PM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Ralf Corsepius<rc040203 at freenet.de>  wrote:
>> IMO, Fedora has obvious problems with its
>> - work-flow (Too immature SW migrates/sneaks through from Alpha/Beta to
>> Final)
>
> If you feel this is the case, feel free to help improve the work-flow,
> or at a minimum help write better Alpha/Beta/Final release criteria to
> help us catch things you consider immature.

Let me put it this way: I am having difficulties in recalling any Fedora 
release which worked for me out of the box ...

In earlier releases there for example were pulseaudio and SELinux, in 
current releases it's primarily systemd, in F17 I am sure it will be the 
usemore stuff, which will cause trouble.

>> - management, whom seems to be driven by a "must have at any price, no point
>> of return ever" policy.
>
> I'm not sure who you're referring to as "management" here
Everybody involved to drawing strategic and tactical decisions related 
to the Fedora distribution.

My point is, I feel there is a lack of "monitoring", "reporting", and a 
sense of "responsibility" of the different bodies involved and of people 
who are able to draw "unpleasant decisions".

To draw an arbitrary example from recent past: Ask yourself - What was 
the shape of systemd in F15/F16? Has the situation been fixed in F17?

Wrt. F17: usrmove - Independently from the fact that I consider it to be 
an "idotic foolishness", ask yourself if it is a shape to be part of 
F17? IMO, it's foreseeable it will not be ready, because there are too 
many unknows attached to it. I now would expect those people having been 
involved to stand up, show responsibility and revisit their decisions - 
This obiviously doesn't happen.

> -- if you
> talking about the FPL, I can say that during my time as FPL I never
> took that attitude.
FPL to me is mostly irrelevant, here, because they are "dealing with 
politics and marketing".

>  If you're talking about FESCo, I don't think they
> have that attitude either.
In this case, I can not avoid to disagree.

I feel they are drawing decisions based on "their (naive?) wishful 
thinking" and then stick to their decisions at any price, but they do 
not seem to feel responsible.

>  To slightly twist Hanlon's Razor for a
> moment, I think you're ascribing to malice that which can adequately
> be explained by a lot of moving pieces and not enough work on
> integrating those moving pieces together.
If you want to put it this way, yes. I feel Fedora is stuck in a swap of 
not being able to cope with the pressure of revolutionary (?) features 
and premature (?), faulty (?) decisions.

That said, IMO, on the technical side, Fedora urgently needs a "calming 
down/lean back/settlement phase", say 2 consecutive Fedora releases 
without "revolutionary features" being introduced, to revisit 
re-evaluate, revert/complete "old revolutionary features".

In this spirit, I eg. would propose to table usrmove for F17 and to 
concentrate on systemd integration and anaconda/grub2 improvements, both 
topics, I perceived as the "hall of shame of F16".


> Let's be honest here -- I
> don't think anyone here wants to blatantly throw features in Fedora at
> any price with no point of return.
It's what I feel had happened with systemd around the F15 time-frame and 
now is happening with usrmove.

Ralf