On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:11:31 +0100 Andy Green <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Sure (again). But what I actually said was: > > > > ultimately abandoned attempt to get selinux support completed in time for > > > FC2 ok. Think it was a worthwhile goal to attempt, and we're still further ahead than if they hadn't tried to make it 100% ready for FC2. > This must be true, but it is also true many of the bugs were long in Bugzilla > before FC2 release, and triage decisions were made by Redhat alone in order > to make the release date. An early and it turned out doomed triage decision > was to focus on trying to complete selinux, at the expense of some of these > other problems. I wonder what guidence would come from thousands of users if > they were asked about their opinions of what was good for their goals in the > next version, if selinux would have been reflected in that guidence with the > importance it was actually given. Well the loudest complaints seems to be about the dual boot issue but this bug barely hit the radar screen before the release. What's interesting is how fast the problem was determined once the release was made. As for the P4P800 problem, should the release be held up for most people because of a problem with one type of hardware? I'm sure there are other issues too, but where do you draw the line? You'll never make a bug free release. There have been many examples in the past where software was delayed for years trying to make it perfect. The timed release process is designed to force developers to make measured progress and feel the healthy preasure of a looming release to help stay motivated. Again, this may not result in something that is appropriate for everyone (like commercial use) but it does meet the stated goals of this project. Many (or most?) problems for this release can be traced back to first time users of the new 2.6 kernel. Fedora will probably have a less rocky road ahead, until the 2.8 relase :o) > > Well, stuff does get turned away, but I take your point. But I am thinking > more on where the shadow-line between "community" input and @redhat.com input > falls in terms of project direction and making decisions, perhaps not right > now but where it is headed. Sure. That's why I asked, what would you like? From information on the Fedora web page I don't think we're ever going to have a democracy. Fedora will be directed by the RedHat developers. I think the Debian model may be closer to what you're thinking? Cheers, Sean
