/usrmove?

[Miloslav Trmač]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> wrote:
> 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.

At the moment the feature was again brought up to FESCo two weeks ago,
the commits were already in the repository, so reverting the feature
would have had a pretty big cost; as much as I oppose the idea of
UsrMove, I didn't think reverting it was worth it at that time, and I
don't think it is worth it now - the situation is not that hopeless to
call for a comparatively extreme measure. (Also, a large part of FESCo
clearly wants this, and I don't think reverting features just because
elections happened in the mean time is a good idea.)

Yes, FESCo
* should have recognized early that the scope of the feature was not
thought through and that more pieces are needed (contrary to claims
back in the end of October that "everything is already implemented and
works")
* probably should have asked for an advance approval from FPC
(although, as a general rule, I think advance approval from FPC
lengthens the feature cycle too much and should be avoided)
* and should have monitored the progress more closely.

The feature process is currently being revised, and at least some of
these issues have been brought up at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fixing_features .  What would be
especially useful is to find ways to improve the feature process.
   Mirek