On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 10:30 -0500, Brian Pepple 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: > > > > > > 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"? > > Really it's just looking for some feedback from the mailing lists. I > started an e-mail on it before the holiday, just haven't had time to > send it yet. How about adding scope of potential damage? The greater the damage to the end-user, the more careful the maintainer should be at choosing. Seriously, if it were some alpha desktop app that might, at its likeliest, cause the loss of sound, then fine. But if it's a DNS server that could poison the network or, at best, result in people within the network to lose connectivity (specially since the developers themselves have stated that it is not for production purposes and I'd like to think of Fedora RELEASES as production), then they should be pickier. -- Richi Plana -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
