On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting(a)redhat.com> wrote:
<Snip>
Would that mean that users who don't start with one of these
'products'
get to magically try and choose which implementation of which they want?
Perhaps even mix and match, leaving QA and the developers to sort out
the results.
Furthermore, you then leave 'downstream' higher-level packages and
applications having to, for example, code to PolicyKit0, PolicyKit1, or
consolehelper, depending on what each 'product' use case might use. Or,
having to build their python extensions simultaneously for python2.4, python2.6,
and python3.0. These sorts of things would be extremely painful for
developers, and would bloat the QA matrix excessively.
Not to reduce the debate to too much of a soundbite, but it almost
seems like attempting to decide whether we want Fedora to be Debian,
or to be something useful for users of it. I'd always pick the latter...
<Snip>
I think the responsibility of these things should be placed upon the
SIG members who perform the functions from within these different
groups. Why not have a QA person from each SIG work together with the
larger QA efforts instead of potentially against them?
-AdamM
--
http://maxamillion.googlepages.com
---------------------------------------------------------
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\
www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments