FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)
Seth Vidal
skvidal at fedoraproject.org
Wed Mar 3 03:37:43 UTC 2010
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Seth Vidal wrote:
>> I do not agree Kevin's view is incumbent. I think what's happened is we
>> exploded in size when extras came in and when we merged core and extras
>> and we lost control over the process and over assimilating what was the
>> CORE process onto extras.
>
> But the Core process wasn't as conservative as you seem to think. KDE
> updates have always been pushed, e.g. FC4 was upgraded from 3.4 to 3.5, and
> bugfix updates have also always been pushed.
>
> But even assuming the Extras process "won" over the Core one, that just
> shows that the Extras process was better.
I never said it 'won' and I don't think you could make the argument that
it did.
Winning implies competition. That wasn't the case.
Think of what Jesse and I are describing like this:
When you're working a lot and involved in a great deal of activity you
will often make a big mess. At some point you have to step back and tidy
up the mess you made and tie up loose ends.
Fedora's been active and growing and we've made a lot of messes, this is
just about managing our growth and tidying up our messes.
We've made a mess and as a member of fesco I'd expect you to be helping in
cleaning up the mess, not making it worse b/c fesco HAS to be about the
long term growth and sustainability of fedora.
-sv
More information about the devel
mailing list