On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:21:12 +0200, David Nielsen wrote: > Be careful not to regulate Fedora to death. So, then the typical "there's no silver bullet" warning here. We do need guidelines for collaboration and to remove bottle-necks, where maintainers are too busy to handle incoming bz mail. Perhaps they focus on devel and don't mind if somebody else applies a patch to F-8 or F-9? These policy documents, however, try to cover each and everything, not taking into account which actual problems we run into regularly and frequently. There are multiple related policies already. Much too complex and tedious. Are there many examples of where someone is waiting long for an easy patch to be applied? Do we have examples of patches where there is disagreement about whether the patch is fine? What damage is done if existing patches are published as test updates? Is it just the theoretical threat that a patch breaks very badly and is worse than no bug-fix? This is about package maintainers who neglect packages in the eyes of the bug reporters or contributors. This is about bugs with existing fixes, but without anybody to prepare and push updates. This is not about forcing maintainers to do major version upgrades, and it shouldn't be about forcing them to orphan a package. I don't want to see a backdoor for version fanatics who want the very latest upstream release on every branch and who just wait for a minor bug to push a major version upgrade while a maintainer cannot be reached for two weeks. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
