On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 12:58 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > Are you proposing to _do_ those things, or proposing that someone > else > oughta? This feels like an attempt to suggest that I have made a demand when I have not. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I suggest avoiding language like this in the future because it seems like a false accusation. If the above was written in good faith, it is at best a false dichotomy. As Zbigniew said elsewhere, just because someone does the work does not mean that the distribution is obligated to accept it. I think we have seen compelling arguments as to why the distribution should disable modularity by default, and so that is what I and others are proposing. We gave it a fair chance. The question remains however, why not just use the time tested strategies that other distributions have employed to address the "too fast, too slow" problem for over a decade? I say that as a helpful suggestion, not as a demand - it would save those who are doing the work a lot of work, and it would avoid the contentious threads that happen over and over again. Plus, other distributions have proven that it works.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ 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
