On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 12:14 +0200, 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?
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)
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.
Ignoring the abusive language in the above, I think what we need is not
so much rules about what kind of updates are allowed, but a bit more
finegrained classification of updates, plus easy ways to filter by this
classification on the client side, and I mean some easy to use ui in
pup/pirut, not some manually installable and configurable yum plugin.
The current classification we have is just
"bugfix - enhancement - security". It would be nice add some more
categories to this, like "cosmetic" (for minor packaging cleanups like
directory ownership handling), and some way to differentiate by
severity.