On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 17:05 -0400, James Laska wrote: > Oh your right. Lemme rethink if there is a better way to articulate my > thoughts. I was searching for a generic way to say, potentially > disruptive changes to core packages aren't a good fit for NTH. The NTH > xorg bug#596557 discussed during the blocker meeting [1] being a good > example. > > I'll see if there's a way to rephrase my proposal to be more accurate. The principles already mention this: "and for which the fix is reasonably small and testable (this consideration becomes progressively more important as a release nears, so bugs may be downgraded from nice-to-have status late in the release process if it transpires that the fix is complex and hard to test)" it's always been a trade-off between how much benefit we get from taking the fix and how complex and potentially dangerous the fix is; I tried to encapsulate that in the principles. -- 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
