On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 08:27 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > The largest problem I have with all this is the fact that the release > guidelines that everyone else has to follow don't appear to be followed > at all in this case. You're introducing a backported feature into a > critical path package after Feature freeze, and after a mass-rebuild > which would have arguably helped test the hell out of this. Any other > maintainer would have to get an exception from rel-eng and/or FESCo in > order to do something like this. I don't see why the same requirements > don't apply here. > This is my issue too. There is claim that it was tested, yet it wasn't tested in the same place we require every other feature to be tested, that being rawhide. If GCC is going to get special treatment, we should discuss, agree upon, and document that special treatment to avoid GCC being used as an excuse for others to ignore our policy and procedure. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
