[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Review queue/FESCo after the merge

On 14.11.2007 22:34, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:16:36 +0100
> Hans de Goede <j w r degoede hhs nl> wrote:
>> Look at it this way, Fedora is all about Freedom, but since the
>> merger the Freedom for contributers (esp. packagers) has been greatly
>> reduced. Take the new release engineering proposals for example, I
>> have some ideas about this, but the entire release engineering crowd
>> had already precooked there ideas and unanimously disagreed with
>> mine, or atleast that is how I perceived this.
>> Most typically of all this I guess is this alinea: This will probably
>> be my last mail in this thread, as I see no use in continuing this
>> dicussion, why? Because I no longer believe that discussions like
>> this will cause any changes.
> Wow, I am somewhat blindsided by this.
> I created the proposal after talking to some people and posted it out
> on the net for review, long before even the rel-eng group voted on it.
> I asked for all kinds of feed back, multiple times.  I had to get the
> releng group to agree to it, and FESCo an opportunity to agree to it.
> There was discussion on list and changes made.  What more were you
> looking for?

The "Request for Comments: Proposed changes to Fedora development cycle"
for example got posted on "Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:24:48 -0400" here

You received feedback from some people, including from Hans, Me and some
others. On "# Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:52:34 -0400" you in

announced "Potential changes to Fedora development cycle" with the
words: "The release engineering team as put together a proposed set of
development cycle changes [1] that could affect Fedora 9 development.
This proposed set of changes has been reviewed on fedora-devel-list and
other lists for a period of time and input has been incorporated as
best it could. Now it's coming time for FESCo to vote on adopting the
new development cycle."

I looked in the wiki what actually got changed between the two points of
time; that's afaics from

this diff:

I'd call that some clarifications in the text to make the proposal more
clear. But sorry, I would not call that "input has been incorporated as
best it could."


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]