"Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 22:09 -0500, Callum Lerwick wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 01:18 +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > Fedora is about showcasing the latest technology, if each time a new technology > > > is introduced, we have to wait months to get a packaging guideline for it, and > > > all packages using the new technology are blocked on that, where does that > > > leave us? > > > > I've always viewed guidelines as being a codification of best practices > > that have been proven in production. With that in mind, the whole idea > > of writing guidelines *before* packages have been put in to production > > is completely backwards. The writing of new guidelines should go > > hand-in-hand with the deployment of the first few "new technology" > > packages. It shouldn't block it. The finalization and ratification > > should happen *after* they have proven themselves in practice. > > I don't fundamentally disagree with that, but the problem in the Java > case was that we had a lot of packages which were being done in several > different, incompatible ways, and no one in the larger reviewer pool was > capable of doing qualified reviews of those packages. The packages > already in the distribution were of widely varying quality, and many new > packages were being "reviewed" as two man efforts (two packagers tag > team and review each others packages by simply saying "APPROVED"). [....] Essentially, then, several ways of handling the Java packages where competing. No consensus came out on its own, even after asking nicely; the comittee then put its foot down hard. That way of handling such cases is OK with me. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
