On Thu, 2015-01-29 at 15:09 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Adam Williamson < > adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Seriously. Stop this. I have already asked people to stop > > assigning negative motivations to others without due cause. This > > is not being excellent to each other. > > "Your user password for your computer is arbitrarily unacceptable to > the Fedora Project" is not being excellent either. Come on, that's sophistry. You can't interpret code as a personal insult. (It's not 'arbitrary', anyway. It's using a well-known and widely-used password quality library.) > > > > > The anaconda-devel-list discussion couldn't really be clearer > > about the relationship to the Change proposal - the whole thread > > was kicked off by the Change owner: > > > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2015-January/msg00026.html > > That change proposal was rejected, so how is it that one of its > proposed changes has managed to make it through to the installer > barely two weeks later? It's not actually something that is part of the Change's scope, but an alternative way to try and achieve the same goal: the overall thought process was "well, what the Change proposer really wants is to reduce the likelihood of compromise via password access to the root account, but no-one was particularly keen on the approach he proposed, so one different way to do it is to improve the strength of the root password". As bcl's mail explicitly says: https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2015-January/msg00030.html > The substantive discussion on devel@ was centered on the sshd > portion, not changes to the installer enabling password quality > enforcement. That happened on anaconda-devel@ which most Fedora > users don't even monitor let alone participate. The main notice of > this change actually occurring happened for the first time in test@ > which arguably most users also don't monitor. If someone's interested in Fedora development, they need to read the Fedora development mailing lists. *Any* code change is presumably of interest to someone, or it wouldn't be done in the first place; this is not a reason for us to go mailing users@ every time someone commits to anaconda. You can argue that the change is significant enough to be a Change, I guess, though personally I don't think it really is, unless it affects kickstart installs (in which case people would be surprised at their kickstarts suddenly not working right any more - but I don't think it does). It's a bit hard to argue about, though, since one of the things the Change process appears to be missing is an actual definition of what should be considered to constitute a 'Change', exactly. It's thus impossible to declare conclusively that X or Y *must* be a Change, unless FESCo has stated it or something. You can suggest that it should be, but it's impossible to make a completely definitive declaration since there's literally no basis on which you could do that outside of a formal FESCo vote or something. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Policy -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
