As one of "others working on this", and having talked to David today, I can assure you that this doesn't particularly change our plans one way or another - you will continue to see more formal methods tools. (Actually, I have a related package waiting for a CVS request, and likely another automated theorem prover will be ready for review this weekend or soon after.) - Alan On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Karsten Hopp <karsten@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Richard W.M. Jones schrieb: >> >> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 08:29:12PM -0400, Brian Pepple wrote: >>> >>> * FESCo voted against making the Prover(1) a feature, since they felt it >>> didn't meet the criteria(2) of being a new feature. Note: This isn't to >>> say that this isn't a good thing, but they felt the target audience was >>> fairly limited. >>> 1. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Provers >>> 2. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy/Definitions >> >> It's very disappointing that this isn't considered a feature, largely >> (so it seems from the IRC log) because the target audience is >> considered "very limited". >> >> Although provers are used only by a few experts to check that software >> is correct, the benefits of using formally checked software >> (functions, data structures, libraries, etc.) accrue to all users of >> that software. >> >> I hope that David & others working on this don't get discouraged and >> this work continues, perhaps as a Fedora SIG. >> >> Rich. >> > > +1, please don't get discouraged when FESCo rejects a feature proposal. > Rejecting something as a feature doesn't mean that the package isn't > accepted > into fedora. It just means that it doesn't met the requirements described in > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy/Definitions#Features. > > > Karsten > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
