On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 04:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Sure it was, there were 2 models before the merge, and one resulting model, > which happens to be close to the better one (the Extras one). The Core model > wasn't lost entirely, its good points persisted, e.g. there's an updates- > testing which is actively used, whereas Extras just pushed everything > directly. But as to when to provide new versions, the Extras model is > basically what we ended up with, and to me that's just further evidence that > it was the right one. We didn't "basically" end up with one or the other. We have both, depending on which packages you look at and which maintainers. If the "extras" style (which was never ubiquitous even within Extras itself) spread, it's because our leadership (which I was a part of at the time) did a poor job in stating our goals for the operating system, and just hoped that our maintainers would see things the way we saw them. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case, and the "anything goes" kind of mentality spread either by example (of the bad), by lack of example (of the good), and by letting it continue unchecked. It's time for some checking. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
