|
osdir.com mailing list archive |
|
Subject: Re: So what next? - msg#00086List: freedesktop.release-wranglersAround 10 o'clock on Apr 13, Egbert Eich wrote: > I will do a merge of the branches today. I'll test and announce it > before doing the commit. Thanks. > > The sooner we get it done, the faster > > things can happen in the future. > > > This doesn't seem to be a universally shared position. To get as much as > possible on the same page I'd like to see the issues individual groups have > being addressed - with the outcome not anticipated beforehand. I suggest that we will not be able to reach rough concensus on this issue in any reasonable timeframe (like the next decade). However, it is not an issue which can be left unresolved, so we need to find a way to make a decision. I would be willing to accept the board's direction on this issue. I suggest that we have it brought to a vote there and move on with whatever plan they specify. There seem to be three possible plans: 1) Leave everything as-is for now and the foreseeable future. 2) Do more development in the monolithic tree, attempting to integrate new functionality and provide at least one more major release with a monolithic build system. 3) Split the monolithic tree apart into modular pieces and prepare those for release without any significant changes. Plan on providing that initial modular release and one more modular release with new functionality. I feel like I've made my own views as clear as I need to; I'd like others to feel free to do the same so that the board has an idea of what the developers involved in the process are willing and able to tolerate. The real problem is dithering about the process, not the specific process we choose. -keith
release-wranglers mailing list release-wranglers-CC+yJ3UmIYqDUpFQwHEjaQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/release-wranglers Thread at a glance:
Previous Message by Date: click to view message previewRe: So what next?On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 10:45:19AM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote: > Keith Packard writes: > > I believe we will not have concensus on this issue anytime soon and that we > > need a formal conflict resolution process here. > > > > I'm feel strongly that now is the best time to make the migration to a > > modular build system, and that separating the build system transition from > > any technical changes will give people the greatest confidence in the new > > system. Doing that transition at the same time we add a bunch of new code > > will be very hard on everyone. > > I'm not so sure about this. I'm not even sure if there is a consensus > how the build system will look like. Some people have proposed a new > build system. I think that the general consensus among proponents of the modular tree is to use the build system currently embodied by xlibs/xserver/xapps. > Speaking of myself I have issues with this build system. Contrary to > what has been promised I have *not* received a satisfactory answer to > my questions. > The following answers do *not* qualify as satisfactory: > 1. "Some people may loose but think of the benefit for the others." > 2. "I don't know off hand how to do this we should take a closer > look at the documentation." > 3. "I'm sure it can be done but I don't know off hand how." If you can restate your questions, I can try to find some definitive answers. I think a lot of it got lost in invective and hand-waving in the original threads. :) d -- Daniel Stone <daniel-rLtY4a/8tF1QFI55V6+gNQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "The programs are documented fully by _The Rise and Fall of a Fooish Bar_, available by the Info system." -- debian/manpage.sgml.ex, dh_make template signature.asc Description: Digital signature _______________________________________________ release-wranglers mailing list release-wranglers-CC+yJ3UmIYqDUpFQwHEjaQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/release-wranglers Next Message by Date: click to view message previewRe: So what next?On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Keith Packard wrote: > I suggest that we will not be able to reach rough concensus on this issue > in any reasonable timeframe (like the next decade). However, it is not an > issue which can be left unresolved, so we need to find a way to make a > decision. I would be willing to accept the board's direction on this > issue. I suggest that we have it brought to a vote there and move on with > whatever plan they specify. There was a very clear agreement several months ago on the conference calls that the modular tree was the plan for going forward, as long as it didn't turn out to be a real fiasco. So far, I haven't seen anything that looks like a real fiasco that would warrant this decisions being reversed. There may be a couple of things that are yet unproven, so we should clearly identify what these are, and push to prove them to everyones satisfaction. Now that the modular tree is working pretty well, it might be time to take a moment, and consider wether or not there is sufficient documentation to explain how to use/build this tree. It's easy once you have done the 4 steps needed to set it up, but there are places where it is easy to stumble while taking those 4 steps. Stuart Stuart R. Anderson anderson-zEVBPjwFtHNWk0Htik3J/w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Network & Software Engineering http://www.netsweng.com/ 1024D/37A79149: 0791 D3B8 9A4C 2CDC A31F BD03 0A62 E534 37A7 9149 Previous Message by Thread: click to view message previewRe: So what next?On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 03:36:53PM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote: > Daniel Stone writes: > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 10:45:19AM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote: > > > I'm not so sure about this. I'm not even sure if there is a consensus > > > how the build system will look like. Some people have proposed a new > > > build system. > > > > I think that the general consensus among proponents of the modular tree > > is to use the build system currently embodied by xlibs/xserver/xapps. > > I'm not convinced of that. What are the alternatives? -- Daniel Stone <daniel-rLtY4a/8tF1QFI55V6+gNQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "The programs are documented fully by _The Rise and Fall of a Fooish Bar_, available by the Info system." -- debian/manpage.sgml.ex, dh_make template signature.asc Description: Digital signature _______________________________________________ release-wranglers mailing list release-wranglers-CC+yJ3UmIYqDUpFQwHEjaQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/release-wranglers Next Message by Thread: click to view message previewRe: So what next?On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Keith Packard wrote: > I suggest that we will not be able to reach rough concensus on this issue > in any reasonable timeframe (like the next decade). However, it is not an > issue which can be left unresolved, so we need to find a way to make a > decision. I would be willing to accept the board's direction on this > issue. I suggest that we have it brought to a vote there and move on with > whatever plan they specify. There was a very clear agreement several months ago on the conference calls that the modular tree was the plan for going forward, as long as it didn't turn out to be a real fiasco. So far, I haven't seen anything that looks like a real fiasco that would warrant this decisions being reversed. There may be a couple of things that are yet unproven, so we should clearly identify what these are, and push to prove them to everyones satisfaction. Now that the modular tree is working pretty well, it might be time to take a moment, and consider wether or not there is sufficient documentation to explain how to use/build this tree. It's easy once you have done the 4 steps needed to set it up, but there are places where it is easy to stumble while taking those 4 steps. Stuart Stuart R. Anderson anderson-zEVBPjwFtHNWk0Htik3J/w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Network & Software Engineering http://www.netsweng.com/ 1024D/37A79149: 0791 D3B8 9A4C 2CDC A31F BD03 0A62 E534 37A7 9149 Loading Comments...
|
|
