On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 22:15 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: > On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 12:56:47PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > bad outcome as low as possible. "Let's just try it and see what > > happens!" is not a mature approach to risk management. > > Ehr, instead of promoting something as supported, just start off slow. > Call if alpha, write down all the concerns, etc. Announcing this as the > new supported + preferred way is not what is intended IMO. > > Your post effectively read as stop energy IMO. It is impossible to get > everything right at the first version. Just ensure everyones expectation > is correct. Call it experimental + alpha initially. > > Various concerns have been raised. Just write them down, make a plan to > address them, done. What I'm trying to do is contribute to ensuring that happens. As I wrote in another post, I've always thought it'd be great if distros could collaborate on a single approved framework/channel for third party software releases (preferably before Valve does it for us). But it definitely _does_ need to be the case that this is done carefully and with a clear decision made on to what extent we choose to 'bless' this mechanism in comparison to the distro repositories. Essentially I'm trying to make the point that this is an extremely sensitive issue which has the potential to cause long-term and non-reversible changes to software distribution paradigms we've been using for decades, so it needs to be handled carefully and with an appreciation of all the consequences, not just with a 'hey, let's build it, slap together some press about it and see what happens' kind of attitude... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
