On 11/28/2007 01:46 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 07:33 +0100, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> On 11/28/2007 06:56 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>>> "TC" == Tom \"spot\" Callaway <Tom>
writes:
>> TC> Such as? Open to suggestions here.
>>
>> We had
>>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/MaintainerResponsibilityPolicy
>> which was never finished; the only thing in there is "Maintain
>> stability for users". I honestly don't see how you can be much more
>> specific without introducing needless bureaucracy. After all, the
>> alpha releases of some projects are more stable then the full releases
>> of others.
> This seems pretty much perfect, actually. What does it need in order to
> be "finished"?
Well, I'm not sure how it can be considered perfect when it does not
begin to address the "alpha/beta" issue that you think is resolvable
with packaging policy.
FWIW, I agree with Tibbs, since we have no way of determining how stable
package releases are without trusting the maintainer.
I never said that we should resolve the alpha/beta issue. I said we
should have some form of (loose) criteria for maintainers in release
branches. "It must maintain stability" is a good criterion item. Else,
maintainers could just go breaking stuff and say "well, I thought Fedora
was supposed to be bleeding edge - nobody told me I couldn't break stuff
in a release".
It also serves as a great fallback policy in the unlikely case we
(FESCo? RelEng?) ever find ourselves in the case where we need to decide
to (nudge the maintainer to) revert a change because it breaks too many
people.