On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 04:48:36 +0100
Miloslav Trmač <mitr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 03:06 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> ("Obviously"? Per which release blocker criterion?)
I think Adam was saying we should fix them, but they can be 0 day
updates (or whenever they are fixed).
> The way I understand Jóhann, the topic to escalate was a proposed
> removal of currently unorphaned packages from the distribution, which
> sounds like a quite reasonable topic for FESCo.
Sure. Then we got sidetracked. ;)
> Such an escalation wouldn't fix F18, true.
>
> In retrospect, the update to httpd 2.4 should probably have been a
> feature; that would make this problem visible by beta freeze. FESCo
> already has "fixing features" on the agenda in a general sense, more
> thoughts on how to improve the process would definitely be welcome.
> Mirek
Agreed.
kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
