On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 01:11:47PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 14:36 -0600, Adam Miller wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > <snip> > > > Take a random downstream app. (Firefox is an example, but there are many > > > others.) Right now, it only needs to track a single version of python, > > > or a single auth framework, even if it may be used on any desktop or any > > > spin. The implication is that in some sort of future with SIG-specific > > > conflicting frameworks, this downstream app maintainer now must be familiar > > > with, and handle *all* of the frameworks, even though they're not > > > specifcally a part of any SIG. That's sort of a rotten thing to do to > > > Joe Random Maintainer. > > > > > > You could say that the SIG needs to then supply people to handle every > > > potential downstream app, but that's also not nice, and is going to lead > > > to fun coordination with updates. > > <snip> > > > > I don't think that's an issue either, I'm not proposing we change > > anything such that it could cause problems. I'm saying the way things > > are now works and I don't understand the desire to change it. > > The way things are now "works" because of status quo. We tell anybody > who wants to change status quo to go start a fork and do it there. > Wait... The entire list of times I can remember someone being encouraged to take their contributions elsewhere are: 1) Kernel modules 2) Non-free software 3) Free software with legal issues 4) I think something to do with packaging content may have resulted in something but I don't know anything about the outcome there. Who's been told to fork Fedora because of the status-quo-target-audience? -Toshio
Attachment:
pgppDFg9Z6bYE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
