On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 22:25 +0200, MichaÅ Piotrowski wrote: > 2011/3/30 Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 09:35 -0500, Adam Miller wrote: > > > >> Again, I'm not against that this is being done, but I would like to see > >> everyone equally follow suit on the way things are traditionally done > >> in Fedora land. > > > > Well, up to a point, Lord Copper. We have a features process with lots > > of bureaucracy and FESCo involvement and so on. What we don't have is > > any clear _enforcement_ of that process; there's no workable system that > > evaluates changes and requires sufficiently significant changes to be > > submitted as features. It's perfectly possible, and has been done lots > > of times, to simply go ahead and commit significant changes that _could_ > > have been 'features', not submit them as features, and happily bypass > > the entire 'feature' process with all its bureaucracy. /run would > > certainly not be close to being the first time this has happened. > > Please do not try to kill evolution through the bureaucracy. Lennart > fixed a long standing issue here and he did it in such a way that tree > other major distributions accepted his solution. He also fixed a long > standing issues with Linux init system. This is not a feature - this > is evolution. I'm not trying to, my post doesn't say anything like that. Adam Miller suggested that the change should be required to go through the feature process, I pointed out that we don't actually have any formal requirement for this (we don't define anywhere exactly what changes must go through the feature process), and suggested that changes of similar impact have bypassed the feature process before. -- 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
