Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 2019-08-16 at 15:21 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:30:36AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I think the process is actually great. I kinda prefer the direction of
> > travel where we expect that packages are actively maintained and quite
> > aggressively throw them out if they aren't, to the direction where we
> > accumulate cruft and only throw it out after extremely longwinded and
> > easily-subverted processes.
> 
> I think if you make it easy to "throw out" packages then you must also
> make it easy to add them back later.  People do a lot of work adding
> and maintaining packages and requiring a full re-review for a package
> that was retired a few days ago is too much.

We don't. There's a grace period of several weeks where a full re-
review is not required.
-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux