Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Sun, 2008-03-09 at 17:24 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> I still believe it would be ok to continue with reviewing java
> packages on a
> best foot forward notion until the guidelines are finished though. I
> that holding packages up for formal reasons like this (other then
> formalities) tends to frustrate contributers, and thats the last thing
> we want
> to do.
The flip side of this is if we let packages pass review without any
guidelines on which to base the review by, then there is no real
motivation for those packagers (or anyone) to generate the guidelines.
I disagree, take the ocaml guidelines for example, the initial draft was
written by Richard Jones and Me (well mostly Richard) when we were working on
getting a set of ocaml packages into Fedora (with Richard as Submitter and me
We started writing guidelines because we needed them to be able to do the
reviews, as too little was known about sensibly packaging ocaml stuff at that
time, and we didn't want to make irreversible (hard to reverse) mistakes.
The ocaml example proves that:
1) guidelines will be written when needed without the big: no approval before
guidelines are in place measure needed to motivate people
2) that its good to allow packages before (final) guidelines, to get experience
with all the involved issues