On 05/04/2010 09:50 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> You must all realize that the ratio of bureaucracy/process burden and
>> quality of maintainers/packagers go hand in hand. The better the
>> maintainers/packagers/components are less bureaucracy/process burden is
>> needed. The worse it gets more bureaucracy/process burden is needed. If
>> ye all feel that the bureaucracy/process burden is increasing that only
>> means that the quality of maintainers and their components is going
>> down.. ( we might be getting more components inn in less quality ).
>
> If our maintainers suck, bureaucracy is not a good solution to fix that
> problem.
You keep saying that, and it just shows a complete disregard for testing in
general. Asking people to test it and simply flag that they've done so with
success (or not) is very much not bureaucracy.
> But we already have a group of trusted maintainers, it's called
> "provenpackager". We could give provenpackagers the power to push directly
> to stable without any karma requirements.
We trust their intent and their ability, because that's reasonable. We don't
trust that they never make mistakes, because that's insane. We all make
mistakes. The karma system is an attempt to mitigate the damage when that
(very frequent) eventuality occurs.
I'm sorry you don't like it, but you've had ample occasion to come up with a
better idea, and you have roundly refused to make any attempt at doing so.
--
Peter
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
