On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 22:34 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > >>Nobody stopped anyone from doing the work involved. In fact it was > >>already done before. http://fedora.isphuset.no/ > >> > >> > >> > >We ARE well aware of that. As stated above, I have the cd's already > >burnt. But when asking a question and disclosing that the question > >involves the unofficial 4.2 release, then the question was summarily > >ignored, as being off topic I guess. If you are not willing to even > >discuss something someone has done in the interests of widening the > >usage, then the whole thing is moot, and we are wasting our collective > >time with this endeavor called a foundation. > > > >You should have welcomed that effort with open arms, and actively > >pointed folks having trouble with _your_ release to that one as a > >possible solution to the install debacle 4 was. > > > I repeatedly wrote the the people who did it with no responses. We > needed to work on several details before adopting such efforts in a > formal way. See my previous private response on this one. As mentioned I only recieved one mail from you, and it was rather unclear about your intentions. Seeing as it looked a lot like the other "Thanks" and "you should do this" mail I dismissed it as that. If there were more I cannot see that I have received any. > >I'm of the opinion that fedora folks themselves should have done the > >respin as you call it, within 3-4 days time when it became obvious that > >4 was a wholesale x crasher that trashed the disks as it went away. > >The take it or leave it attitude has the distinct odor of hydrogen > >sulfide about it. I myself tried to contact redhat people on a few occations, but never got any responses either. I guessed redhat is a big organization and had no time for little me. What really irritated me was that the installer problems never saw any updates in FC4. What I mean is that anaconda never got fixed. I got several mail telling me to "atleast fix the anaconda problems" but due to legalese I did not dare to deviate from the standard FC4/FC4-updates packages. The two most prominent problems that also exist in FC4.2: 1. Swap label garbage 2. Installer cd won't boot unless you feed it garbage. Inquires about whether the kernel sitting in updates-testing for weeks will get released within the next few week or so went unanswered. Resulting in a brand new kernel just a few days after FC4.2 release. (2.6.13* -> 2.6.14* jump) > If you mean Red Hat needs to do all the work then that does not make it > a community effort. Other folks contributing does. Luckily someone just > did that and if see the fedora-devel list discussion you could have seen > me, Warren etc welcoming that effort wholeheartedly. Unfortunately > subsequent communication has been stalled due to non responses. We > cannot collaborate more since this require changes in the trademark > guidelines and other technical details to be worked out. We are looking > for more community input on different use cases that help us modify the > guidelines to support such needs. If you provide that, do email gdk AT > fedoraproject.org Fixing anaconda sounds to me like a community benefit. I assume it was not fixed because RH and FC4 itself didn't need it. Had it been *insert other community distro of choice here* it would have been maintained and updated like any other package. > >To me thats ignoreing any 'community effort', and quite frankly I'm less > >than impressed with this newfound selling of the word community, when > >its been rather pointedly ignored until now. > > > New found? I remember the original announcements mentioning this idea. > > >If you want it to be a community effort, then its time a hell of a lot > >more credit was given to those that have contributed. > > > > > But we did. We welcomed it several times What *I* read was several thanks from *redhat.com ppls that seemed to be from the persons, not company. IE: I didn't see them as official. -HK
