[dev] [FRR TSC] Package Discussion (Doodle for times)

[Donald Sharp]

So do you want to have the meeting to discuss the issue or not?

Robot

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Martin Winter
<mwinter at opensourcerouting.org> wrote:
> Ok, there seems to be some serious lack of interest.
>
> Only got response from David and “Robot” (supposedly Donald?).
> (and Jafar saying that he doesn’t have time)
>
> Not sure how to proceed, so here is my rant:
>
> I’m thinking about just closing the Redhat Package PR (not merging,
> just close) and someone else can address it again in maybe 6 months
> or whenever there is any interest at all.
>
> I was really hoping to get something in - maybe not perfect, but at
> least a start and everyone would be welcome to improve it afterwards
> with PRs on top of the base.
> The PR doesn’t break anything existing (current packages fail on all
> OS for me, so I’m not building any RH packages at this time). So I think
> it’s better than what we have now and it doesn’t break anything existing.
> Based on this, my view would be to get it in.
>
> But it seems the discussion goes down the rathole on how to have all
> perfect back to 2.0 release and rather have nothing instead of this.
> There is very little technical feedback (Donald provided some and I
> thank him for this - even if he has different views, I highly
> appreciate them. The issue here is NOT the fault of Donald, but
> the lack of feedback from just about everyone else. It just caused a
> “standstill” as Donald and I have different personal views on some of
> the technical points. But I think a 3rd/4th opinion could have solved
> this very easily)
>
> Now from me pushing the long overdue decision, the whole things seems
> to derail on how to get packages into distro’s. This is secondary to me
> as they always lag far behind and I think there is no way around
> providing up-to-date packages directly like most other projects do.
>
> </rant>
>
> Steps forward:
>
> I formally ask this now to be moved to the TSC for a vote on how
> to move forward (as our charters outline). I want an agreement to
> either
>  - Close (abandon) the PR without merging
>  - Accept the PR as it is
>  - Clear indication of what is missing/broken and required to
>     be fixed for it to be accepted.
>
> Let’s see how our TSC process works…
>
> - Martin
>
>
> On 23 May 2017, at 8:56, Martin Winter wrote:
>
>> https://doodle.com/poll/5bx4c7krsb3xctxu
>>
>> Pick your times if you want to be part of the discussion…
>>
>> - Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> TSC mailing list
> TSC at lists.frrouting.org
> https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/tsc