/usrmove?

[Miloslav Trmač]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:58:32AM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> 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.)
>>
> Just a note -- if this is the case, then the contingency planning portion of
> the Feature Process is broken.  If it is, the changes to fix it could be
> a big pain... For instance, at X milestone, features that fesco is afraid
> won't make it are required to run through their contingency plan to make
> sure that it is doable and extimate cost to revert... falout of this is that
> with the extra work, some features might miss the deadline because they
> optimistically felt they wouldn't fall into this category... OTOH, if fit
> and polish of the GA is the criteria, perhaps this isn't a bad thing.)
>
> Note that I didn't get the impression from reading the FESCo logs that they
> felt the contingency plan was too big to invoke at their last discussion of
> UsrMove so I'm not certain that this is something that needs attention.

No, this wasn't discussed by FESCo - that's just my personal rationale
for being reluctant to push for reverting the feature.

Reverting a large-scale feature will always cause some amount of pain,
that's unavoidable and, given how rarely we revert features, I don't
think it's a real problem.

In this case, the changes were committed to the master branch, which
both made it more difficult to revert the feature and made life for
pretty much every packager more difficult for some time.  AFAIK it is
not currently possible to create a public feature-specific git branch;
is that something worth considering?
    Mirek