@Matthew: I'm just stating a fact, the absence of guidelines does not mean that we can accept reviews. In this case, you can't help but violate a few general guidelines when you use the golang toolchain, for instance: "statically linked executables", that would require an exception from fesco on case by case basis. Don't get me wrong, not having golang (and Docker) is more harmful than not having guidelines but we can't perpetually circumvent that issue. That was maybe unintentional but what I read in Richard first email was more like "hey, let's avoid FPC and develop our own parallel set of guidelines". Instead of coordinating with package maintainers, I would preferred to see something like "let's improve the guidelines draft to solve our problem and fix the existing packages" @Rich Jones: I agree with you that gaining experience, but that could be done using a copr repository or granting exceptions for a limited set of packages. @Florian: I have to disagree with you, I don't think that FPC puts the bar higher toward golang guidelines. FPC is an extremely busy committee, most of them are not Golang experts, and they're not looking for perfect but sustainable. And yes, many packages do not respect their respective guidelines, but that's a different matter that also needs to be fixed. For the record, I'm all in favor of having periodic automated reviews on all packages. If we can get golang guidelines, I swear that as a provenpackager to help you guys enforcing them on existing packages :o) -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
