tmraz at redhat.com
Thu Feb 9 07:57:27 UTC 2012
On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 04:24 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 02:14:53AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > IMHO, FESCo needs to accept that sometimes they make a mistake (especially
> > if the vote was disputed to begin with) and revote. UsrMove should have been
> > unapproved, not only for F17, but forever.
> So, just to be clear, you're saying that even if usrmove had landed in
> an entirely perfect and complete form the day after F16 branched, it
> should still have been rejected?
You're talking about completely theoretical situation nobody is arguing
on. It is theoretical because there is still not _perfect and complete
form_ of the UsrMove feature. Yes, most of the objections to it were
eventually fixed/workarounded/rebutted but I'm sure not all of them.
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
More information about the devel