Dne 6.12.2012 18:23, Josh Boyer napsal(a):
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Also, there was dissent already in the "auto-approving" of leaf-features
during the meeting discussion so I am not sure that auto-accepting of
Features in general given a lack of response is ever going to actually
happen. I personally wouldn't vote for it.
This proposal entirely avoids discussion of "leaf-features", "self contained
features" or "complex features with system-wide impact" since there will
never by any reasonable metrics you can apply to decide. If you can't decide
what feature you are dealing with, how you want to judge if FESCo should be
approving it or not.
If some FESCo member thinks that is should be approved by FESCo, s/he still
has the power to open ticket for FESCo meeting. The same power as other
Fedora community members.
Actually I would be very interested to hear why there should not be
"auto-approving". Please enlighten me.
I explained my reasoning in the part of the email you cut off in your
reply.
josh
Sorry Josh, but I can't find any reasons in your quote:
"Also, there was dissent already in the "auto-approving" of leaf-features
during the meeting discussion so I am not sure that auto-accepting of
Features in general given a lack of response is ever going to actually
happen. I personally wouldn't vote for it."
Only reason I see is "there was dissent". So based on some dissent, you
are against "auto-approving"?
I'd love to hear why there is dissent. What is the reason for dissent.
Vít
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
