Patrice Dumas wrote:
There are some places where some interaction happens, and some checks of
guidelines, are possible, like in reviews. Also some specific cases
have policies (missing maintainer, who is allowed to change other people
packages). But in general maintainers are free to do whatever they want
in their packages.
In fact I think that it is a good thing, except when bugs are not fixed,
even though the bug reporter provided with a fix.
Great words!
Free is freedom is freedom with all pluses and minuses! Freedom it is
not only be free doing want you want, it is also allow do it for others!
Sure, please do not threat it as proclamation to anarchy!
We have guidelines, and I believe what most of maintainers tried be
closer to it. We pedantic check following to it in step where it may be
formalized: In review request, in reviewing, in sponsoring, in
guidelines change, in many other situation. But we can't even try apply
any sanctions to maintainer to its treat some very common
recommendations like [1]
Sorry, but it is only recommendations. F.e. how you are suggest apply
any sanction by formulation like (cite [1]): "New upstream releases
should not necessarily be pushed to release branches. The benefit of the
bugfixes and new features should be weighed up against the risk of
regressions.". How it should be weighed? Who should weight it? For what
scale in last??? Must we call FESCO on each update to vote it? Do karma
absolutely necessarily (so, some rigidity and qualification here even I
wish see, but it is subject another thread)? Any things?
[1]
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Package_update_guidelines
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
