On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:21:50PM +0200, Martin Sourada wrote: > On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 17:17 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > > On Friday, August 13, 2010 05:09:17 pm Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > > > > Then we have to push broken updates, policy says so and it's ok, so let's > > > > do it > > > > > > > > :( > > > > > > A policy requiring us to push something broken is broken. I'm not going to > > > push broken shit. > > > > Just irony but it feels like... > > > I wonder why I get the impression that the only ones who strongly oppose > this change are you folks from KDE SIG... Are you doing things > differently from anyone else in fedora - the rest of us are either more > or less neutral or positive towards this new change? > > Basically from both user and maintainer point of view I'm for more > testing and more conservative update policy in general in stable > branches. > I'm negative towards this change and not part of the KDE SIG but don't really like to clutter up the mailing lists with a bunch of negative energy. And I don't like the way it makes me feel about Fedora to continually try to get a compromise solution that accomodates everyone when none of the parties with the power to change things want to be reasonable. (This is probably an oversimplification.... I know at least one person who sat on FESCo at the time of this change being passed feeling the same way I do about needing a compromise and not being heard when they tried to ask for one. Ironically, they are right that they were drowned out by the combative voices on both sides... I don't even remember when they mentioned the compromise solution there were so many other strident voices.) So I've kept my voice out of this... and hopefully, now that you know that it's not just hte KDE SIG, I can go back to doing so again. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpQ3ZvT5slPv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
