For the record, I'm a community guy requesting a policy on updates.
Leaving it up to the packagers is fine if the packagers feel confident
that they can themselves decide on the best updates policy for users for
each package, I'm not that confident. I'd like to see some guidelines on
when to push updates for certain types of packages, simply because I
just don't know what makes sense.
And I feel really guilty, I alone am responsible for 22 of the updates
in updates-testing, of which 21 are new packages that didn't make it in
before the merge. Then again, the rest of the 300 or so packages have
the same new package/real update ratio as mine do, we're only dealing
with a minor number of real updates.
søn, 10.06.2007 kl. 16.20 +0530, skrev Rahul Sundaram:
Neil Thompson wrote:
>
> And very shortly you're going to be asking for a policy to be written which
> defines when the maintainers are going to be allowed to have bowel movements,
> aren't you?
Completely Unrelated.
>
> The strengths of Fedora are its leading (even bleeding, at times) edge software
> and its maintainers. I had hoped that the merge would lead to more freedom and
> faster throughput for new software, but it looks as though we're on the verge
> of a coup by anal, hide-bound, corporate control freaks. (<- hyperbole, but it
> worries me)
Who exactly are you calling that?
> Please folks - if you're going to build a community, make sure that you have
only
> the governance that is necessary and NO MORE! Leave the maintainers (who have been
> appointed to look after the packages) to do their jobs. Address mistakes and
issues
> on a case-by-case basis and don't hamstring everyone with a bunch of
pettifogging
> rules.
Updates policy has been requested before by community folks too. You
don't even have to necessarily change your current practises. Just
document them explicitly.
Rahul
--
Sindre Pedersen Bjørdal <foolish(a)guezz.net>
-
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/SindrePedersenBjordal