Adam Williamson pÃÅe v Po 01. 11. 2010 v 10:08 -0700:
> > > We designed a policy,
> > > put it into effect, now we're observing how well it works and we can
> > > modify its implementation on the fly. It doesn't need to be done in an
> > > adversarial spirit.
> > Given that _this exact scenario_ was repeatedly brought up since the
> > very start of the update acceptance criteria proposals, I think some
> > frustration is quite justified. This situation is not really a
> > surprise, and Fedora did not have to unnecessarily expose users to a
> > vulnerability in order to relearn this lesson.
>
> On the other hand, other scenarios were also brought up, which have not
> come to pass - for instance, the same thing happening to Fedora 13 or
> Fedora 14. If we had simply accepted the predictions of doom and not
> implemented the policy at all, we would be without its benefits for the
> development of F13 and F14.
A problem with this line of argument is that the benefits are not quite
apparent to me.
> > In addition to being constructive about remedying the situation,
> > shouldn't we try to be more constructive about _not introducing such
> > situations_ in the first place?
> Saying 'oh dear, this might not work, we'd better not try' is rarely a
> good approach, IMHO.
That is a cost-benefit comparison. "New" does not imply "improved".
> It's better to try things, with the proviso that
> you accept when they aren't working and withdraw or modify them.
It's even better not to dismiss known problems with the policy, and to
make sure the policy can handle them properly from the start. This was
not a surprise, this was an "unforced error".
Mirek
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
