On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: <Snip> > Would that mean that users who don't start with one of these 'products' > get to magically try and choose which implementation of which they want? > Perhaps even mix and match, leaving QA and the developers to sort out > the results. > > Furthermore, you then leave 'downstream' higher-level packages and > applications having to, for example, code to PolicyKit0, PolicyKit1, or > consolehelper, depending on what each 'product' use case might use. Or, > having to build their python extensions simultaneously for python2.4, python2.6, > and python3.0. These sorts of things would be extremely painful for > developers, and would bloat the QA matrix excessively. > > Not to reduce the debate to too much of a soundbite, but it almost > seems like attempting to decide whether we want Fedora to be Debian, > or to be something useful for users of it. I'd always pick the latter... <Snip> I think the responsibility of these things should be placed upon the SIG members who perform the functions from within these different groups. Why not have a QA person from each SIG work together with the larger QA efforts instead of potentially against them? -AdamM -- http://maxamillion.googlepages.com --------------------------------------------------------- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
