On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:48:52AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: >On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 20:17 +0100, Iain Arnell wrote: >> 2008/12/10 Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> > Treat rawhide as your 'new code' land, leave the release trees as your >> > 'testing and working' code. That is don't be so goddamn eager to push >> > new packages and new upstream releases to every freaking branch in >> > existence. >> > >> > Of course, when I make suggestions like these, I become extremely >> > unpopular. >> > >> >> doubleplusgood >> >> As a recently sponsored contributor, I would suggest changing the >> documented procedures. I was more than happy to shove new packages >> into rawhide only, but when confronted with >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join and >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure >> felt obliged to request branches for F-9 and F-10 too (and pressure >> during review to support EPEL too only adds to the problem). >> >> Requests for new packages should only be permitted in rawhide by >> default (and consequently, EPEL+1 whenever and whatever that may be). >> Some form of additional review/sponsorship/bribery should be a >> prerequisite for branches in already-released version. >> >> -- >> Iain. > >Interesting idea! Would you be willing to bring this topic to the next >FESCo meeting? FESCo is the body responsible for such decisions. Do we have metrics on 'number of brand new packages going out as updates' versus 'existing packages being bumped to new versions'? If not, how hard would it be to get those? They would be rather important to reviewing this idea at a FESCo level. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
