On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 00:26 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:31:25 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 11:18 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > > Have you *READ* the proposal? > > > > Of course I've read the proposal. Have _you_ actually tried dealing with > > Extras package-monkeys recently; trying to get them to fix a problem in > > their packages which is even slightly outside their own use case? > > Does this refer to just https://bugzilla.redhat.com/208774 or would you > like to provide more examples? I didn't have that specific bug in mind, no. If feel that to provide specific examples of 'package-monkey' behaviour _would_ be impolite to the individuals concerned -- regardless of the terminology I use; I'd be saying "I'm concerned by the quality of maintenance from people like $foo; we need to make sure we keep them in order and not let them find any extra excuses not to maintain their package properly." I merely expressed concern at the _possibility_ that this might happen, and I seem to have been assured that it won't be allowed to happen. So that's good. -- dwmw2 _______________________________________________ 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
