On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 12:14 +0200, Neil Thompson wrote: > > And very shortly you're going to be asking for a policy to be written which > defines when the maintainers are going to be allowed to have bowel movements, > aren't you? > > The strengths of Fedora are its leading (even bleeding, at times) edge software > and its maintainers. I had hoped that the merge would lead to more freedom and > faster throughput for new software, but it looks as though we're on the verge > of a coup by anal, hide-bound, corporate control freaks. (<- hyperbole, but it > worries me) > > Please folks - if you're going to build a community, make sure that you have only > the governance that is necessary and NO MORE! Leave the maintainers (who have been > appointed to look after the packages) to do their jobs. Address mistakes and issues > on a case-by-case basis and don't hamstring everyone with a bunch of pettifogging > rules. Ignoring the abusive language in the above, I think what we need is not so much rules about what kind of updates are allowed, but a bit more finegrained classification of updates, plus easy ways to filter by this classification on the client side, and I mean some easy to use ui in pup/pirut, not some manually installable and configurable yum plugin. The current classification we have is just "bugfix - enhancement - security". It would be nice add some more categories to this, like "cosmetic" (for minor packaging cleanups like directory ownership handling), and some way to differentiate by severity. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
