On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 01:26 -0400, Horst H. von Brand wrote: > Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, 2008-09-28 at 23:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > "Horst H. von Brand" <vonbrand@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > To imagine that it's workable for the majority of > > > projects is to demonstrate lack of connection to reality. > > > Pardon, but you probably can relate, why I have to disagree on this. > > > > I would turn this argument around: The apparent lack of quality of the > > distro, the amount of bureaucracy and ineffectiveness the Fedora > > approach cause are a living proof for a non-functional approach. > > How do you measure "distro quality", My subjective measure is "distro works for me without major effort". Reality is: This doesn't apply. > "amount of bureacracy" (and how much > of that is "too much"), "effectiveness"? koji, bodhi, packagedb, acls, freezes, bugzilla, trac, wikis, mails to rel-eng/<committee dejour>, the "incident", the triagers, server downtimes, mirror latencies, bugs not getting fixed, ... All together (not worth mentioning all the bugs and nits they suffer from) have a massive impact on effectiveness. Openly said, it has hardly ever been less effective to contribute to Fedora as it is in recent past. > I'd say the fact that we are discussing this shows that the qualility is at > least decent enough for serious consideration. Certainly - Otherwise, I wasn't be using Fedora. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
