Round-up, 2004-11-28

[Eric Rostetter]

Quoting Jim Popovitch <jimpop at yahoo.com>:

> --- Jesse eating <jkeating at j2solutions.net> wrote:
> > Other than the account, what is too complex?
> 
> IMO, The bug system itself.

Do you mean Bugzilla, or something else?

> That, and the steps involved in completely
> understanding WHAT needs to be tested

I agree it is hard for new people to know what needs testing, etc.  The
round-up sent out periodically (and linked off the web site) is of 
tremendous value here.  It is perhaps the only reason FL is actually getting
updates out IMHO.

> and having/maintaining a stable (but
> not
> production) system to test the fix on.

Well, not much we can do about that, in particular since that would be
a site policy issue (along with site finances, etc).

> Oh yeah, also having enough faith to
> trust that others have *really* and *solidly* tested what they are labeling
> resolved.

This is the whole point of a community project.  If you can't come to 
terms with this, then you really can't use any community project.  Also,
I don't have faith in many commercial vendors that they have really and
solidly tested their software.  I have as much or more faith in FL than
in many vendors, or than in projects like FC.
 
> I think FL has just grown too fast and is trying to do too much.

I think it has grown too slowly myself.   Not in what it is trying to do,
that was stated in the beginning.  But in getting people to participate
and actually do the work, it has, and is, growing too slowely.

> Support
> barely begins before it is dropped.

What are you refering to?  The droping of RH 7.2 and RH 8?  Or the FC1
support cycle?

I disagree really.  The plan, developed long ago, seems good to me.
Supporting FC any longer than we decided to would be very problematic
due to the large changes in FC releases.

> I'd wish that RH would deal with their
> FC1/2/3 mess, they created it, and let FL focus only on Redhat Legacy stuff
> (i.e 6.2,7.3,8,9).

Well, RH is not going to deal with any of it, so FL will have to do it
if we want support.

> Perhaps it's worth splitting and starting a Redhat-Legacy
> group, that way FL could focus on Fedora features and the new group could
> focus
> on just older Redhat security patches.  Then again, Dag pretty much has that
> covered.

No, no, and no.

You could split into two groups if you want, no problem.  FL for FC udpates,
and RL for RHL updates.  That isn't a big deal.  But if you did, we would
still want to provide updates only.  No features, no upgrades, etc.  Dag
and FreshRPMS and all the others are completely 100% different from FL.
They provide additions and upgrades to distributions, where as FL only
provides updates/fixes for distributions.
 
> -Jim P.
> 
> 
> --
> fedora-legacy-list mailing list
> fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
> 


-- 
Eric Rostetter