On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 14:17 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
[...] I think we need to be
careful of the mindset that says 'we can't enforce any standards in
Fedora because it's a volunteer project so we must just accept what
people are willing to give us'.
Even though packaging in Fedora is a volunteer process, we still have
fairly rigorous packaging guidelines and a review process. We don't just
accept any package someone turns up and submits. i.e., we're enforcing
standards of quality, despite this being an entirely volunteer effort
and no-one being compelled to show up and provide packages of a
The concept of having a policy requiring updates to be tested before
they're issued is really no different.
Correct in the sense that Fedora has the authority to impose both
policies. The costs and benefits of each policy are still open for
I do think that for update testing to work well going forward we need
engage more groups with it and make it clear it's not something that
some separate QA group is just going to do for everyone and no-one has
to worry about it.
That's easy to say. The fact remains that if no one feels they have a
sufficient incentive to do the work of testing an update for a
particular Fedora version, it simply won't get tested.
When software is packaged it's reasonable to expect that
somewhere, uses it; if they don't, it probably shouldn't be packaged. We
need to find those people and engage them in the testing process, and it
seems to me that the maintainers of packages are as well placed as
anyone to help find and engage their users in this process.
The argument sounds reasonable on its face, but apparently some (many?)
maintainers don't agree. Pestering them does not seem to be helpful.
We have the option to take away their ownership of the package,
potentially resulting in it getting dropped from the distribution if
another maintainer can't be found, but again we have to ask whether the
benefits outweigh the costs.