Fabio Valentini wrote:
> Don't blame Miro for doing the necessary things, just because you don't
> like the process.
The issue is that I do not agree that this process is necessary to begin
with.
> We have asked you multiple times to suggest a policy that works for you
> too, but you haven't done that,
I have. The policy that I have suggested is to just do nothing. FTBFS by
itself has no impact whatsoever on end users. Only if the package actually
does not install and/or run, it is appropriate to file a bug, and if that
bug is not acted upon and cannot be easily fixed by a provenpackager due to
the FTBFS, to initiate the (existing) non-responsive maintainer policy.
You may not like that proposal, which is your right, but please do not claim
that it does not exist.
Intermediate concepts between my proposal and the status quo could also be
considered, e.g., retire the packages if nothing depends on them, but if
retiring some particular package would break some other package, do nothing
for that particular package.
> instead you only insulted community members.
As far as I can remember, I have not insulted people. I have only described
processes (not people) with negative terms that I do not believe to be
insults (such as "broken" or "defeats all common sense"), and I believe that
criticism to be objectively true. I am sorry if that offends any of you.
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
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
