On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 11:49 -0400, Christopher Blizzard wrote: > On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 10:31 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > > > All we're really trying to do is make good packages. We've tried > > really > > hard to make guidelines that lead to good, clean, > > maintainable-long-after-you-are-dead packages. > > > > I hear what you are saying and I understand. What I'm saying is that > there's a fine line between making good packages and going over the > edge. So in your example, documenting is good. But if you end up with > an exception process? I think that probably crosses the line. Dispute > resolution, maybe. But I just worry that we're going somewhere we don't > want to be. Not sure how to properly put this into words. What would you suggest we do in response to package maintainers saying "I ignore the guidelines"? How are we to be expected to keep the guidelines current and updated without being informed that some packages don't conform to them? I see the exception process as a necessary evil, and everytime it is invoked, we update the guidelines so that exception is not necessary. ~spot -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
