* Daniel P. Berrangé: > What's notable to me is that, generally speaking, maintainers use > their own discretion as to which optional features they enable > or disable with a package built in Fedora. I'd expect that in most > cases similar to this a maintainer will just disable the feature, > do a koji build, and never tell anyone, nor ask for permission. > Package maintainers do this all the time, even dropping builds > for entire architectures without telling anyone beforehand even > though there are users / dependant packages. > > In this case the maintainers are effectively being penalized for > trying to proactively alert users to a change, that probably > doesn't impact many/any users in the first place. > > This serves to discourage other maintainers from even making a > feature change page in future, lest they be rejected. The safer > course of action is to just silently disable the feature, and > then ask for forgiveness later in the unlikely event anyone > complains. Yes, this thought has crossed my mind as well. There are definitely much more impactful changes we make upstream, and at most, Fesco gets to rubber-stamp them. So the balance seems rather off here. Thanks, Florian _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
