Anaconda is totally trashing the F18 schedule (was Re: f18: how to install into a LVM partitions (or RAID))

[Peter Jones]

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:47:39AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 10/31/2012 08:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >My concern at this point is exactly that we're "slipping a week at a
> >time", rather than facing up to the*undeniable fact*  that anaconda is
> >not close to being shippable.  If we don't have a workable contingency
> >plan, I think the best thing to do would be to start slipping a month at
> >a time.  And drop the beta-freeze restrictions, until we reach a point
> >where anaconda actually is beta quality.  Other people have work they
> >could usefully be getting done, except that they have to jump through
> >these beta-freeze hoops --- which not incidentally are slowing down
> >anaconda work too.  It's insane that we are wasting time debating
> >whether anaconda bugs are release blockers or beta blockers or only NTH,
> >when any honest evaluation would recognize that the whole thing hasn't
> >reached alpha quality yet, and*all*  those bugs had better get fixed if
> >we don't want F18 to permanently damage the reputation of Fedora.
> >
> >You can slip a month (or two) honestly, or you can fritter it away a
> >week at a time, and ensure that as much of that time is unproductive as
> >possible.  There is not a third option.  (Brooks'_Mythical_Man-Month_
> >has useful things to say about this sort of scheduling trap --- anybody
> >who hasn't read it should.)
> 
> Had I any say in the matter I would have strongly urged to not enter
> the beta freeze when we did.  I also think it's counter-productive
> to getting things in shape, and mostly just makes a lot of people
> hate Anaconda because it's keeping the freeze going.

Yeah, I don't think it's helped, either.  FWIW I voted against it, and
I voted against the schedule, because I don't think it allows us the
time to make large changes like this without the serious problems we're
seeing now.

-- 
        Peter