On 28.03.2007 12:46, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> On 27.03.2007 19:47, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote: >>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jesse Keating wrote: >>> Surely it's not in the interests of the 3rd party repos to contribute to >>> Fedora breakage. Right? >>> Is it *theroetically* possible to have a set of standards that unofficial >>> repos could follow to be less likely to break us? And if so, what >>> prevents those standards from being created, and met? >>> Maybe these are stupid questions -- but I like putting stupid questions on >>> the record. >> /me put his 3rd party repo hat on >> Hopefully the 3rd party stuff should get better soon with a potential >> merge of some 3rd party repos (which got already mentioned in a board >> meeting afaik). > I believe it was but I dont think I was in that meeting. I'm quite sure it was once on IRC during a meeting some weeks ago that someone else involved in the effort informed to board about the happenings (I think it got mentioned on this list, too). > Can you provide > more details on the merger? If it was discussed anywhere else pointers > would be just fine. Google finds pointers if you use the the proper wording. But no, I can't provide any more details regarding the repo merge ATM, as the plan was/is to not announce it when the rough plan how to actually do it was worked out. Sorry -- I disagree with that, but it's not my decision alone. CU thl _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
