On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 08:51 -0700, Richi Plana wrote: > 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. The importance of individual packages is pretty dependent on the use case. For most users of a Fedora desktop, it is probably far more disastrous if the email client or web browser crashes, than if some dns server the haven't installed has some bugs. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
