[systemd-devel] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047614

Reindl Harald h.reindl at thelounge.net
Wed Feb 12 14:12:07 PST 2014

Am 12.02.2014 22:41, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
> On 02/12/2014 07:37 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> these are all regressions from F19 to F20
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023820
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010572
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057811
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057618
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023788
>> sometimes it feels like systemd-upstrearm has a release-and-forget-strategy
>> and don't care about the downstream distributions and issues there nor
>> how bad the impact of them for how long is
> I'm not so sure you are aware of this but the major part of systemd maintenance in 
> Fedora is and has been handled by Zbyszek for the past year which is doing that on 
> his own free time and before him it was Michal who is a Red Hat employee but working 
> on completely different thing then systemd and he was also doing systemd downstream
> distribution maintenance on his own free time.

i am aware

the major point of my critism is systemd-upstream's "release-and-forget"
with no point releases at all and the state of systemd in F20 makes that
not looking like a working strategy overstraining downstream maintainers

that may work for a browser but not for a core-component of a distruibution
or only in case of luck and not hitted by bugs as we have them now

> Both of them have been doing good job of maintaining systemd in the distribution 
> and been extremely conservative in their maintainership 

extremely conservative would have been keep Fedora 20 on systemd-204
which has none of that problems - systemd-208 obviously has *not*
release quality

extremely conservative with a stable release: fine
extremely conservative with a broken release: not fine, it needs fixes, timly

reported:   2013-10-27
GA release: 2013-12-17
current:    2014-02-12

> so I suggest you keep your tone down towards people contributing their 
> own free time to the project.

my tone is ok, if someone can't stand critism that's a different problem layer

i am contributing *my own free time* with testing and bugreports, the last
systemd build for F20 was tested, rolled back and commented with feedback
minutes after the build completed, so i deserve feedback in a timely manner
and not get ignored over months (and i am not the only one)

since you are the one fighting against RH on fedora-devel and claiming you are
Fedora QA more than once - where where you in case of the bugs above? how did
they pass QA if any random tester is facing two of them within minutes?

> With regards to those RHEL bugs I suggest you follow Red Hat's official procedure dealing with those

RHEL bugs? maybe read them before make comments and get rid of your hate
against Redhat could help, the Fedora bugzilla is below redhat.com and they
are all *Fedora* bugs and *one* of them made it to RHEL-Beta *too*

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 246 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/attachments/20140212/32233dae/attachment.pgp>

More information about the systemd-devel mailing list