On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 11:56 -0400, Peter Jones wrote: > 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. > > I'm totally in agreement that an exception process isn't somewhere we > want to go. Arbitration when there's a dispute causes less impedance to > actually getting things done, while still achieving the same goals. How would you suggest we deal with maintainers that outright say they choose to ignore the packaging guidelines? /B -- Brian Pepple <bpepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 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
