-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Bill McGonigle wrote: > CentOS tends to be crufty, Fedora tends to be broken. Average users > usually want to be somewhere in the middle. Having a user- focused SIG > as an additional check on packagers' decisions to update packages could > have quality benefits. > > I like the idea that Fedora is whatever there's a SIG for, not just for > avoiding the question, but for the idea that Fedora is a process, not a > product. > > -Bill Just a thought, but could that SIG just enforce a critical path- like workflow (with overrides from the security team) on FN-2? They would have to be willing to do the QA, talk with SIGs and maintainers, and be large enough to be able to do so. Thoughts? As a bridge, have critical path grab more packages in FN-1 (maybe have it happen at a milestone such as FN+1 the-release- formerly-known-as-beta?). - --Ben -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkp7fAkACgkQiPi+MRHG3qQa0wCeOkR/xSGvXlJcsYMWuLdTg4TO OfoAnAyF8a1V8D2BwS7lvYE6JpLyci1z =xO/E -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
