As one of "others working on this", and having talked to David today, I can assure you that this doesn't particularly change our plans one way or another - you will continue to see more formal methods tools. (Actually, I have a related package waiting for a CVS request, and likely another automated theorem prover will be ready for review this weekend or soon after.)
- Alan
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Karsten Hopp karsten@redhat.com wrote:
Richard W.M. Jones schrieb:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 08:29:12PM -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
- FESCo voted against making the Prover(1) a feature, since they felt it
didn't meet the criteria(2) of being a new feature. Note: This isn't to say that this isn't a good thing, but they felt the target audience was fairly limited. 1. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Provers 2. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy/Definitions
It's very disappointing that this isn't considered a feature, largely (so it seems from the IRC log) because the target audience is considered "very limited".
Although provers are used only by a few experts to check that software is correct, the benefits of using formally checked software (functions, data structures, libraries, etc.) accrue to all users of that software.
I hope that David & others working on this don't get discouraged and this work continues, perhaps as a Fedora SIG.
Rich.
+1, please don't get discouraged when FESCo rejects a feature proposal. Rejecting something as a feature doesn't mean that the package isn't accepted into fedora. It just means that it doesn't met the requirements described in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy/Definitions#Features.
Karsten
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list