On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 01:26 -0400, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-09-28 at 23:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Horst H. von Brand" <vonbrand(a)inf.utfsm.cl> writes:
> > > Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
> > To imagine that it's workable for the majority of
> > projects is to demonstrate lack of connection to reality.
> Pardon, but you probably can relate, why I have to disagree on this.
>
> I would turn this argument around: The apparent lack of quality of the
> distro, the amount of bureaucracy and ineffectiveness the Fedora
> approach cause are a living proof for a non-functional approach.
How do you measure "distro quality",
My subjective measure is
"distro works for me without major effort".
Reality is: This doesn't apply.
"amount of bureacracy" (and how much
of that is "too much"), "effectiveness"?
koji, bodhi, packagedb, acls, freezes, bugzilla, trac, wikis, mails to
rel-eng/<committee dejour>, the "incident", the triagers, server
downtimes, mirror latencies, bugs not getting fixed, ...
All together (not worth mentioning all the bugs and nits they suffer
from) have a massive impact on effectiveness. Openly said, it has hardly
ever been less effective to contribute to Fedora as it is in recent
past.
I'd say the fact that we are discussing this shows that the
qualility is at
least decent enough for serious consideration.
Certainly - Otherwise, I wasn't
be using Fedora.
Ralf