On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 13:28 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > As a little gedankenexperiment, let's explore for a second a 4th option: > > Fedora-blessed/hosted/sponsored/whatever repos for things that we don't > > feel should be mandated on users, but which some users may want and some > > maintainers want to be able to provide. A little bit of all three - > > including a built-in need to be minimalist in construction, so as to > > avoid conflict nightmares, but at the same time freedom to say "here's > > a new major version of this, since we _know_ that's what you're looking > > for if you've got this repo enabled". > > > > Obviously this would require some tools work, but isn't it worth > > considering? > > What does option 4 provide over option 2? > > In fact, how is it even functionally different? 'Fedora' repositories > are effectively nothing more than 'blessed' repositories anyway, given > the considerable powers granted to maintainers. To expand a bit, my personal opinion is that a single 'blessed' repository makes more sense than a framework for the provision of multiple 'semi-blessed' repositories; the latter provides no significant benefit over the former, while making it much harder to ensure adherence to basic guidelines, and repository coherence. We already have systems for checking common guideline compliance problems and things like dependency issues within a single repository; we don't have tools for doing this across a bunch of separate quasi-independent repos. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
