On 2022-11-28 08:51, Adam Williamson wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with this, because practically speaking, there's very little "oversight" of anything in Fedora.
Is that a disagreement, though? When I say that packages are allowed to update without oversight, what I mean is that while the policy says that should or must request approval from FESCo for some types of updates (oversight), that doesn't happen in practice. The changes I suggested reflect the current practice, I think.
But, again, I'm not entirely sure, and I'm also not entirely sure that current practice is what we actually want as a project.
writing down notes about what gets "enforced" and what doesn't might give the wrong impression.
Right. And that why I'm proposing that some of the language that currently suggests enforcement and oversight be removed.
There are also leaf nodes we care about a lot. Firefox is a leaf node, more or less, but we do care about updates to it because it's an *important* leaf node. Ultimately you use Fedora to*do stuff*, and a lot of the doing-stuff packages are leaf nodes...
Firefox might not be a good example of your intent in this case because it gets Major-version updates (in the semver sense: API-breaking updates) essentially as early as possible, without any FESCo approval. Yes, of course we care that it works, but it's an example of a package that doesn't reflect the policy in any way. And I think everyone agrees that it shouldn't. For the non-ESR release branch, the current practice is the only workable one.
_______________________________________________ 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
