F7 Plan (draft)

[Dave Jones]

On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 11:30:43AM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
 > On Wednesday 20 December 2006 11:22, Tim Burke wrote:
 > > I don't think we are prepared to *responsibly* deliver the realtime
 > > kernel in FC7.  Consider that there have been infinite threads on the
 > > trauma Xen has introduced.  Such as a zillion patches, often out of
 > > sync, etc.  Well, currently the realtime kernel is also a zillion
 > > patches - many of which conflict with Xen.
 > >
 > > afaik, we were not intending to have someone on the realtime space who
 > > is constantly keeping up to date with the Fedora rebasing etc (like Juan
 > > does for Xen). Sure, Ingo frequently rebases to upstream, but not
 > > against the Fedora variants.  I just don't want realtime to slow down
 > > Fedora.  Now, when enough of realtime is in upstream that its a
 > > manageable patch set, thats a different story... but that may be FC8.
 > >
 > > Things like Xen which are a major integration challenge make much more
 > > sense in Fedora.  There are installer, system startup, networking, yada,
 > > yada to sort out.  In contrast, realtime is primarily "just a kernel".  
 > > So the same integration challenges do not exist (knock on wood).  There
 > > is already an existing upstream community around the -rt patchset.  
 > > Based on this, we may not want to fragment the audience.
 > >
 > > Mind you, I'm not trying to holdback RT from Fedora.  I just don't think
 > > its mainstreamed enough to fit responsibly.  I welcome opinions though.
 > 
 > I honestly think that we can no longer deliver _anything_ significant in the 
 > Fedora kernels that isn't upstream.

Right.  Remember that original Fedora goal "Be close to upstream" ?
We need to get back on track to that ASAP, not deviate further away.
And shovelling things into separate RPMs is not the right answer to the
current problem

		Dave


-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk