On 11/28/2007 01:46 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 07:33 +0100, Christopher Aillon wrote:
On 11/28/2007 06:56 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"TC" == Tom \"spot\" Callaway <Tom> writes:
TC> Such as? Open to suggestions here.
We had
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/MaintainerResponsibilityPolicy
which was never finished; the only thing in there is "Maintain
stability for users". I honestly don't see how you can be much more
specific without introducing needless bureaucracy. After all, the
alpha releases of some projects are more stable then the full releases
of others.
This seems pretty much perfect, actually. What does it need in order to
be "finished"?
Well, I'm not sure how it can be considered perfect when it does not
begin to address the "alpha/beta" issue that you think is resolvable
with packaging policy.
FWIW, I agree with Tibbs, since we have no way of determining how stable
package releases are without trusting the maintainer.
I never said that we should resolve the alpha/beta issue. I said we
should have some form of (loose) criteria for maintainers in release
branches. "It must maintain stability" is a good criterion item. Else,
maintainers could just go breaking stuff and say "well, I thought Fedora
was supposed to be bleeding edge - nobody told me I couldn't break stuff
in a release".
It also serves as a great fallback policy in the unlikely case we
(FESCo? RelEng?) ever find ourselves in the case where we need to decide
to (nudge the maintainer to) revert a change because it breaks too many
people.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
