Adam Williamson wrote: > That's worth replying to, actually, because you're right - I may well > have fudged the terms 'developer' and 'maintainer' at some point in this > thread, and I really shouldn't have done, because as you point out it's > an important distinction here. I'm mostly concerned with maintainers, > not developers. If your work is principally on upstream code, then it's > not really a big deal whether you run Rawhide or not, though obviously > in the wider goal you form part of the group of users who it would be > *nice to have* testing Rawhide. It's mostly people whose work is in > maintaining the packages that make up Fedora that I think it would be a > really good idea to have running Rawhide. > > Sorry if that was confusing people. I forgot that the developer / > maintainer distinction is an important one here and on this list. It's also important to realize that in Fedora many of our packages are maintained by developers (one anecdote which kind of illustrates this happened a few weeks ago when behdad offered to let others maintain the packages he is the maintainer of so he can concentrate on his upstream work on them). So when you talk about getting the X package maintainers to run RawHide so they won't break stuff while letting the X developers work on their upstream code on a stable base you've got to realize that they're actually all upstream developers who happen to pull double duty by making the Fedora packages. This isn't the case for all packages and packagers but a lot of the basic packages that, if they break people will think "raw hide is broken", are this way. kernel, xorg, gnome platform, etc. So you'll have to figure out if the people who aren't upstream developers form a significant base that can work with your ideas or how to adapt your ideas to the types of contributors that we have. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
