Anaconda is totally trashing the F18 schedule (was Re: f18: how to install into a LVM partitions (or RAID))
rwheeler at redhat.com
Wed Oct 31 14:00:27 UTC 2012
On 10/31/2012 07:54 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 10/31/2012 11:42 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> It's already been pushed back once, the first iteration of newui was
>> attempted to land in F-17 and was pushed back to F-18 if my memory
>> serves me correctly.
> Dont think it did
>> So I think we need to land it now and deal with
>> the fall out then move on. The one thing that concerns me is the lack
>> of communications about LVM with the storage team as it makes me
>> wonder what else has been missed/assumed.
> Lack of communication lol those RH storage developers could have.
> A) subscribed to the Anaconda developers list to monitor changes relevant to
> their setup as anyone else affected by any upstream changes ( this got
> mentioned in August )
> B) bothered to do a simple test install of alpha they would have noticed that
> the installer did not default to LVM partition layout by default and had that
> discussion then and there...
> So the Storage team within Red Hat they themselves expecting the Anaconda team
> to be running around notify them or FESCO for that matter is just utter and
> total bullocks and their little lvm no being turned on by default pails in
> comparison with what we ( QA Community ) "discovered" where missing in the
> installer early on...
> There is a lot of things FESCO and Anaconda developers can be blamed for and
> those two groups will have do a hard look into how they are doing things but
> lvm on or off by default and those Red Hat developers not knowing about it
> falls entirely into those individuals own laps.
You continue to miss the point by trying to cast dispersions on the storage people.
The file system and storage developers are subscribed to the our domain specific
lists and to fedora-devel where we do our work. We did review early versions of
the UI redesign, but no mention of of flipping LVM off by default was raised.
Do the anaconda people subscribe to device mapper lists and file system lists?
I don't see that as a scalable or useful way to spend your time to require every
developer to subscribe to every other teams internal lists.
When work impacts another team - especially work that disables another team's
contributions and features - it is reasonable to assume that they should be
pro-actively reached out to.
As well, when we cut modern features from Fedora, that should be reviewed
explicitly and stated as a FEATURE page, not part of a UI redesign. Or at
least posted to fedora-devel with a "heads up".
They really are orthogonal issues.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I personally organized a community day at plumbers
which pulled in members of the anaconda team, others working on storage
configuration and device mapper and file system developers.
The teams do talk and work together, we clearly need to improve here on process.
More information about the devel