Re: Feedback on secondary architecute promotion requirements draft

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> AFAICT there is a clear FESCo consensus that the list can not be
> exhaustive.

That's good news.

> Essentially, asking for a promise to promote automatically if a
> checklist is met is equivalent to asking for permission to promote
> even if the software is known to be broken and/or unfixable.

+1

Promotion MUST be a case by case decision!

        Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux