On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, p...@laptop.org wrote:

> as mikus said, his applications all worked before.  this is a 
> regression, plain an simple, *with respect to the previous XO releases*. 
> now, to the extent that fedora doesn't really care about any specific 
> piece of hardware, especially one which wasn't running fedora when these 
> things last worked, then i suppose it's appropriate to ignore the 
> issues.
> i think this, and the fact that no one is sure what's broken in the 
> current fedora-on-XO releases, points to huge holes in the OLPC plan of 
> record for ongoing support of this product.  unless some energetic 
> entity is willing to own the actual XO distribution(s), and be 
> responsible for maintaining a bug list, and issuing even minimal release 
> notes, i fear for the project. (or, rather, i fear that the project will 
> be running 8.2 until the laptops die.  which wouldn't be the worst 
> possible outcome, i suppose...  :-/ )

This is what happens when the 95% of the developers working on the project 
get canned.  The unenviable choice becomes:

* Get a community to work from an 8.2 branch that will become more and 
more outdated over time; or

* Get a community to work from a moving target that has a greater chance 
of supporting new features once they're integrated, but is inherently less 
stable for large chunks of the development cycle.

Whichever way you go, strong leadership, patience, and many hands are 
required to fight through the problems.  If the community cares enough and 
develops the necessary leadership, the project moves forward.  But it's 
never easy.

It is my hope that people continue to use the tracking bug here, and 
align bugs to it, and use it to assess fitness of the current release:


It may not be the perfect tool, but it's the best we have.


Got an XO that you're not using?  Loan it to a needy developer!
   [[ http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO_Exchange_Registry ]]

Devel mailing list

Reply via email to