Fedora Core 1 Test Update: gnome-panel-2.4.2-1

[Mark McLoughlin]

Hi,

On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 11:02, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> >   + Move onto FC2 and hammer on that. I think its much more important
> >     to focus on getting the next release right rather than spending
> >     too much time on little issues in the last release.
> 
> Yes, but as said fixing FC1 might benefit FC2.
> 
> Also I am not particularly fond of the idea to "leave a mess behind
> while rushing to the next release"

	That depends on your definition of "a mess".

> >  FC test2
> >     devel freeze is this coming Friday and I'd much prefer to see
> >     things fixed for that release rather than an FC1 update.
> 
> I hadn't realized this to be so soon already. That somewhat changes were
> to put (y)our focus of course. Still it doesn't seem to be much extra
> work to split of a devel package for both branches. But see above.

	I'm not sure what the policy is, but I'm personally *very* reluctant to
introduce an extra package in an update.

	Judgement call - weigh up risk of introducing a new package and the
ramifications (e.g. gnome-applets would need to BuildRequire
gnome-panel-devel instead of gnome-panel) against the actual benefits of
doing it in an update. I don't see substantial enough benefits in
splitting out a -devel to warrant the risk.

> > 	So, I'm new to Fedora - but I think that's probably fairly close
> > representation of the entire project's focus right now.
> 
> I understand that Fedora is Red Hat's development branch, but that
> doesn't mean some community effort can be put in stabilizing the current
> release.

	Of course. *Some* effort. Some effort *has* gone in.

	Judgement call - decide how much effort should be put into FC1 and how
much should be put into FC2. IMHO, we should attend to the serious
issues in FC1 and concentrate everything else on FC2. I don't see many
more serious FC1 gnome-panel issues - the couple of remaining ones I
hope to resolve for FC2 when I have time and I'll consider doing an FC1
update with those fixes then.

> If you decide not to include the
> BuildRequires into this update for FC1 then I can find that a bad
> decision, but tough luck for me.

	Judgement call - missing BuildRequires only impact people who actually
want to rebuild the package. In this case the BuildRequires are
sufficiently low level that most people would have the neccessary
packages installed. And if they don't have them installed it will fail
very early in the build with a helpful message. So, I didn't think it
was worth the time spent making the change and testing it. It'll be
fixed for FC2.

Cheers,
Mark.