On 8/12/2011 3:28 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 19:40 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
>
>>> I've never got around to working up a coherent proposed modification and
>>> submitting it, though - if anyone else can, that'd be great.
>>
>> I'll just go back to what I've said before. I don't care what system
>> you create as long as there is something/someone responsible and
>> accountable for getting things unblocked. Right now there is no
>> one/thing responsible and accountable for getting things approved and
>> you nag the one person who doesn't have the ability to do it. That's
>> just flat backwards.
>
> I'm not sure what kind of a 'you' that was, but it ain't my job, mate ;)
A sort of rhetorical 'you' as in whoever fixes the process from where it
stands ;-)
> - FESCo came up with the current update approval process. Anyone can
> propose a change to it, you have as much standing as me (if not more) to
> do that. FESCo would have to discuss and approve it.
>
> The reason why the package maintainer gets nagged has been explained
> several times: part of the theory behind the current process is that it
> is, to some extent, your responsibility as a package maintainer to
> ensure your package gets tested. You can't perform the testing, but it's
> reasonably likely that you would be (or, at least, *could* be) in touch
> with people who could, and could contact them and encourage them to do
> the testing.
Theory and practice, especially on n-1 releases, don't seem to match up
very well.
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
GPG KeyID: CFBFF194
http://people.redhat.com/dledford
Infiniband specific RPMs available at
http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
