FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[Kevin Kofler]

Frank Murphy wrote:
> It's also called "political licence"

No, it's not really the same thing. ;-)

I didn't try to distort your viewpoint, just highlight the contradictions.

But this time I'm replying in order. :-)

> If you mean these points from "Mail Lists" then yes.

Yes, that's what I mean.

> The why\how is it a bug?
> Who decided?
> Handshake?

Upstream? Whoever reported it there?

> If it's a bug and you (generic) know about it,
> please refrence it in bugzilla,
> even if only providing a link to upstream Bugzilla\Similar

So I should file bugs against my own packages just to link to an already 
existing and already fixed upstream bug report? What kind of useless 
bureaucracy would THAT be? :-/

> Thats what Bugzilla is for.
> If people so not report bugs,
> they should be educated to do so.
> Whether user\dev\packager\ etc..
> No one is a mind reader.

It doesn't take a mind reader to realize that an upstream BUGFIX release, 
well, FIXES BUGS! ;-)

> Semantics.
> You want embellishment go Rawhide.
> otherwise stick with Security\Bugs as updates.

I don't think that's a good plan. Running Rawhide is NOT something an 
average user should have to do. A voluntary tester, sure, but not a user who 
just wants to use the system and needs the latest kernel, e.g. for his 
hardware to work.

        Kevin Kofler