On Thu, 2015-01-29 at 16:24 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > 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 > > That's not the point at all, which is, is it correct policy to > activate a sub-change in a rejected change proposal? It's *not* a sub-change in a rejected change proposal. It wasn't part of the rejected change proposal at all. > And is it prudent to dig heels in when there's been more negative > feedback on that change presented on anaconda-devel@ and test@ than > positive? I can't even find positive feedback except from the > original change owner. Um. Take a step back, relax, and look at the timeframe here. bcl mailed the list *yesterday*. He hasn't posted back to the thread since. You should give someone a hell of a lot more than one day before you start talking about 'digging heels in'. > I was thinking of this one > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy/Definitions that whole thing is obsolete, the Change process replaced the Feature process. Nothing with 'Feature' in its URL is current any more. -- 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
