On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 15:30 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > I'd rather our package mgmt direction be a bit more organized than > reactionary responses to something that gets added one afternoon. I think there are two separate problems. The first, which may well be a fait accompli, is "which version of rpm should be in fc6?" The second, which concerns me greatly, is "how/why the heck did we act/not act so that we'd have no choice in this matter for fc6?" It looks to me from the time line of the bug report that we've had plenty of opportunity to hash out exactly how or whether we'd follow the upstream RPM path well in advance of the fc6 cutoff. Heck, it could have made fc5! But we, Red Hat, did not. And we did not say why not. And now it looks like it's too late, which means that a strategy of inaction and non-response worked to achieve a tactical agenda that somebody, I don't know who, is pursuing. Bully for them. But we owe it to ourselves and the community, whether or not we can change our decision about the rpm version packaged for fc6, to explain fully and faithfully exactly why we've chosen to extend our divergence from upstream. I don't think an implicit "deal with it" is going to cut it. M _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
