On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 13:08 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > seth vidal wrote: > > > I'm not positive but this doesn't seem like a board decision. If the > > releng, fesco and infrastructure teams are at an impasse we can take it > > up for discussion but I don't see a reason to not let those groups do > > what they're supposed to do. > > Well, it has already been discussed in fedora-infrastructure list with > no agreement on whether this is something we should do or not and that's > the reason it is being escalated to the Fedora Project Board. IMO it is > certainly something the Fedora Project Board should look into > encouraging for two reasons. > > It seems the natural next step for being a better upstream after > enabling spins to look at what we can do to enable derivatives (such as > OLPC or the work Marvell is doing) which are not just straight subsets > of the Fedora repository and it could potentially help us evaluate > whether we want to move to distributed SCM's (which also seems to have > been discussed without any decision repeatedly). Both of these should be > considered by the board individually and in this context too. When last I looked it sure sounded like fedora-infrastructure thought it was a duplication of what we already have and an odd duplication at that. Moreover, it wasn't like fedora-infrastructure couldn't come to a unanimous decision on the subject, if you read the original thread it was more like no one cared a whole huge amount and the subject just died. Yesterday mike responded with a detailed comment and I agreed with him. It's a misuse of our very limited disk space and it's not obvious why a git repo is the one item to waste the disk space on versus another scm. -sv _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
