Harmless KDE feature upgrades - yeah right

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 13:28 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:

> > As a little gedankenexperiment, let's explore for a second a 4th option:
> > Fedora-blessed/hosted/sponsored/whatever repos for things that we don't
> > feel should be mandated on users, but which some users may want and some
> > maintainers want to be able to provide. A little bit of all three -
> > including a built-in need to be minimalist in construction, so as to
> > avoid conflict nightmares, but at the same time freedom to say "here's
> > a new major version of this, since we _know_ that's what you're looking
> > for if you've got this repo enabled".
> > 
> > Obviously this would require some tools work, but isn't it worth
> > considering?
> 
> What does option 4 provide over option 2?
> 
> In fact, how is it even functionally different? 'Fedora' repositories
> are effectively nothing more than 'blessed' repositories anyway, given
> the considerable powers granted to maintainers.

To expand a bit, my personal opinion is that a single 'blessed'
repository makes more sense than a framework for the provision of
multiple 'semi-blessed' repositories; the latter provides no significant
benefit over the former, while making it much harder to ensure adherence
to basic guidelines, and repository coherence. We already have systems
for checking common guideline compliance problems and things like
dependency issues within a single repository; we don't have tools for
doing this across a bunch of separate quasi-independent repos.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net