keeping spare-time-contributors happy

Hans de Goede j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl
Mon Sep 3 22:05:55 UTC 2007


Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hans de Goede wrote:
>>
>> And why not ? They worked well enough before, didn't they?
>>
>> Don't get me wrong I'm in favor of updates announcements and of 
>> avoiding unneeded updates.
> 
> If you already in favor of these, I don't think you need any convincing 
> that these are important for the end users. Sure, they aren't absolutely 
> necessary but these are an improvement over what we had previously and 
> there is some additional overhead as part of that.
> 
> If anyone in favor of the processes then implementation details can be 
> improved. If anyone thinks that the processes themselves are not useful 
> then any implementation won't make them happy. Don't mix these.
> 

You know one thing I really dislike? I dislike it when people keep dodging the 
bullet in a discussion. What both Ralf and I are trying to make clear is that 
the new procedures cause lots of annoying extra little steps, we are not trying 
to rewind the clock to the pre merge release model.

The tools available just aren't up to the job when it comes to the ergonomics 
of these tools, and don't give the answer that I should be fixing them then. 
There is a group of people responsible for pushing the community to the use of 
these tools, and the people responsible for the introduction of them should now 
take their responsibility for fixing them.

Do you know what I want, I want to be able to say
make release foo-1.1-1.fc7 foo-1.1-1.fc6

And then a tekst editor gets fired with a template for the update announcements 
and after that the system takes care of doing little details like building for 
fc6 once the update has hit F-7. Having todo this manually _sucks_ especially 
when you have to remember to do the fc6 build for days while waiting for the 
F-7 update to get pushed.

Which reminds me: Note to self must build security update for ... <darn what 
was that package again?> ... <looking up in bodhi> ... for vavoom. Note to 
reader this is not a joke, I really still need to build it and I really needed 
to look up which package I need to build again. Also note that I cannot build 
it yet since the vavoom SECURITY fix still hasn't been pushed yet, so building 
this for FC-6 would break the upgrade path.

Ahh perfect example this, can someone please explain to me how this does not 
suck? And if noone can, can someone please start working on streamlining this.

Regards,

Hans









More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list