On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 18:42 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 11:01:48AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > > 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. > > > > But we're not even aware that there is a dispute, when people just > > decide not to follow the guidelines. There is no "Packaging QA" group, > > constantly auditing spec files. > > This would still be the same issue if guidelines would tunr into laws > with exception policies. "If no one sees the crime, there was no > crime." > > This thread seems to have been spawn by some explicit example of a > packager consciously violating the guidelines. But some of us don't > know what the example is. Could you post in some URL? Maybe the issue > is not solved by turning guidelines into stone, but by something else. Top of thread: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-May/msg00351.html Where it starts to get "interesting": https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-May/msg00459.html -Toshio
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
