On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 03:06 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 01/08/2013 02:10 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 01:56 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > >> On 01/07/2013 10:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > >>> Why? What can FESCo do about it? We don't need to kick every damn issue > >>> to FESCo, as seems to be a trend lately. > >> Ah I see but it's ok when you do... > > What have I escalated that was not a high-level technical decision? > > So the remaining webapps that ship with the broken configuration that we > are about to release into the hands our our enduser base and how they > should be handled are not considered high-level technical decision? What is the decision to be made? "Do we fix them"? Obviously yes. > What else is it? > > The alternative is that fesco single out individual and forced him to > fix brokenness in other components which ironically already had been broken? > > Which one do you prefer? > > David rewrote the part of polkit that makes the authorization decision > which resulted in this [1]. > > He was not forced to go through all the components and rewrite all the > polkit rules which still may be broken in some places so a simple > question why Kay but not others if not to set a precedent? > > What makes Kay so special he deserves the honor to be treated like this > and given the blessing of fixing those things up? I'm not debating, defending or attacking any particular decision FESCo has made. I'm just saying I can see nothing in particular they can decide in this case. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
