On Tue, 29 May 2012 09:31:11 -0500
inode0 <inode0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
...snip...
This is certainly easy to understand and my only concern is from the
perspective of the EPEL consumer. If the Load Balancer Add-On were
provided by EPEL and I jumped on that only to have the epel-go-between
object 6 months later and have it pulled out from under me I would be
an unhappy camper. It is OK to say that is my tough luck, but in cases
like this I'd feel more confident using EPEL if the epel-go-between
said it was OK to include Load Balancer Add-On before it was included
rather than coming along later to say it isn't OK and yanking it.
So, you are suggesting an 'opt in' rather than 'opt out' ?
ie, if we hear nothing we shouldn't conflict, but if we specifically
hear from them 'ok, we don't mind, it doesn't cause us any issues' we
should only then allow conflicts from that channel/product?
One other thing that comes in here... there's a bunch of fasttrack and
z-stream channels. Should any policy we draft address them as well?
kevin