[fab] looking at our surrent state a bit

[Jesse Keating]

On Friday 03 November 2006 06:07, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>  But on the other hand it seems to me that the progress in our
> distribution specific stack (anaconda, config tools, initscripts) is
> quite slow. And not only that, also the infrastructure of Fedora for the
> community (new VCS, let community help in Core, ...) seems to go forward
> quite slowly (e.g. nearly nothing).  Yes, there is some process and some
> quite nice new features here and there, but OpenSuse and especially
> Ubuntu seem to be a lot better in that area and (more important) get
> much more attention in the news and within the Linux community for their
> improvements.

As far as the VCS goes, there _has_ been significant progress.  Since FC6 went 
out the door I took the opportunity to devote some time to this task.  As of 
last night there is a proof of concept dist-hg setup that provides Extras 
package source control in mercurial, complete with Makefile support and a 
deployment of plague modified to build from HG.  If you wish to test, see the 
dist-hg page: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/VersionControl/dist-hg

I plan on taking what I learned from dist-hg and incorporating it into a 
dist-git proof of concept.

[SNIP]

>
>  We still have no "Fedora Core steering Commitee" (see also
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2006-September/msg000
>79.html ) -- what core does or how decisions are made it completely in the
> dark for the Community and that really sucks.

We're working on that.  Core has mostly be handled by members of the Fedora 
board.  We'd like to change how this works for the next Fedora release.

>
>  Why don't we have a public roadmap? That might give community members
> at least a chance to get interested in topics and start helping getting
> them done.

We don't have a public road map as we haven't fully looked at all the changes 
we'd like to do for the next Fedora release.  We just got FC6 out the door, 
and we're taking a bit of a breather.  New package versions continue to march 
on as always.  There are some pretty major infrastructural, political, and 
technical changes that the Fedora Board would like to see made during the 
next development cycle.  A "summit" will be taking place in about a weeks 
time to discuss much of this and present it to the community.  Please stay 
tuned.

>
> == Fedora Extras ==
>
>  * Developers from Core talk to Extras contributors more often these
> days; still far from prefect, but it's getting better

We Red Hat folk continue to educate other Red Hat folk about Extras and the 
role the Extras developers play in the Fedora releases.  Sometimes its hard 
to reach every one, but we're trying.

>  * the Fedora Directory Server is still not in Core or Extras afaik

Last I heard there are some packages that are up for review, but are 
languishing due to no reviewers.  We don't want to just shove the software 
into Extras w/out a review now do we?

>  * we can't do anything we'd like to do; I hope we can get a bit more
> support from RH in the future

That's a pretty vague and hurtful statement :/

>
> == MISC ==
>
>  * I got the impression (and LWN readers, too ["hello corbert! "]) that
> Fedora Legacy is not able to do it's job properly. Maybe it's time to
> just revamp the whole project?

This is part of what we'll be discussing at our "summit".  The changes we'd 
like to make have far reaching implications, Legacy being one of those 
reached.  Again, please stay tuned.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20061103/3892a882/attachment.sig>