On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 at 16:04, Kevin Kofler via devel <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I think we are going to just have to agree to disagree here.
>
> I think we have had this discussion a number of times now and aren't
> going to convince the other.
So Bodhi will continue to become more and more unmaintainable due to piling
up more and more complicated rules that it needs to enforce, and obvious
defects such as the one that started this thread will never get addressed.
It is really sad that you are not willing to open your eyes and see the
amount of damage that this dead-end policy has caused and is still causing.
Could you possibly pick the fight with the right people for once? It doesn't matter if Kevin Fenzi agreed with you because he isn't the person who a) writes the guidelines which were asked to be implemented or b) works on bodhi codebase in any way. He just makes sure it and the other 240 services runs and that the builds generally flow. That already takes up about 60 hours of his work week.
If you have problems with this please bring it up with FESCO and the Fedora Packaging Committee and probably the Council. They are the ones who over time have listened to packagers, users, and developers about what was expected from the build system and they are the ones who have given general guidance over the last 10+ years of bodhi development.
Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive
Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. -- Ian MacClaren_______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
