Re: roadmap editing
> Hi,
>
> On Thursday 25 October 2007 01:14, Jürgen Leibner wrote:
>> Nothing makes it special. It was written there, because there was
>> a
>> sentence like: 'here we collect things for ...', if I remember
>> correctly.
>
> Yup. That sentence was there for about an hour, as a placeholder
> before
> our "debian edu lenny roadmap" session in Merida, at which we
> changed it to
>
> 'Here we will collect items for our roadmap to lenny. Do not just
> edit this
> list. Contact h01ger via [MAILTO] debian-edu@lists.debian.org before
> doing
> so. (The dev-meeting in October in Extremadura decided that h01ger
> is
> responsible for maintaining the roadmap.) Thanks. Exception: feel
> free to add
> yourself to "who plans to work on it" :-)'
I realy would like to do that, but as i said, word is eating my time
up :(
>
> Because it's is not helpful if everybody adds their "pet bugs" to
> the roadmap,
> which then will become cluttered and unmaintainable.
Ack
>
>> Over all said above, more thinking before deleting is saving time
>> and
>> nerves ;-)
>
> It goes the other way round, too: more thinking before writing is
> saving time
> and nerves too. :-D
Yes, this is also true ;-)
>
> And (I'm pretty sure) you have no idea how much we thought about
> this,
> assuming we thought little (or need more thinking) can be taken as a
> demotivating insult, too.
Over the lifetime of that bug I've got the impression, that the time
of the developers is better spend for more importend things as to
help windows to keep in place. I agree with that.
But I've also had everytime the hope that if there is a reminder,
that someone will fetch it up and work on it with succsess. So I
tried to keep in the mind of the developers.
>
> On Wednesday 24 October 2007 22:43, Kurt Gramlich wrote:
>> it is important, to get R1 runing without problems with window
>> workstations, that means a corrected and improved smb.conf
>>
>> at least in lenny it has to work
>
> Feel free to send patches, it seems to be important for you.
>
>
> That said, you might be interested to know, that I talked with
> Daniel about
> the issue (after noticing the discussion that happened that day on
> the german
> list, and before it was added to the roadmap) and that he said he
> will add
> this to the manual. Which prompted him to document the first steps
> with lwat
> (howto add linux machines to the network), which is a
> pre-requirement to
> document howto add windows machines.
>
> And this really puzzles me:
>
>> > I believe that the samba config work with Windows XP. Is this
>> wrong?
>> Maybe it works, I didn't test it since months.
>
> Aehm, if you are not sure whether a bug is actually fixed, why add
> it to our
> workload instead of confirming first, if it's fixed or not?
It is not the point if it works with XP or Vista, which I tested
here just before release. It is the focus on how it works and that
was explained in the german user ML. It doesn't work in the expected
way.
>
>
> All this said, I'm happy you follow this bug and even/also that you
> added it
> to the roadmap. You were not in Merida, you just followed the wiki
> edits
> remotely and added something which is important for you.
> Great. "Unfortunatly" _we_ (not me alone) decided that bug was
> inappropriate
> for the roadmap and removed it. Removed it without further notice as
> we were
> aware of the issue (and were working on a fix) and are already
> tracking it.
> So IMO no big deal at all.
Yes, so I recogniced it.
But as you have seen, it might eventually be better, to have more
information for people who are not involved as deep as developers
are, to avoid misunderstandings and unmotivation.
>
>
> regards,
> Holger
>
Reply to: