On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Adam Williamson
<adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Thu, 2015-01-29 at 16:24 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> > It's not actually something that is part of the Change's scope,
> > but an alternative way to try and achieve the same goal: the
> > overall thought process was "well, what the Change proposer really
> > wants is to reduce the likelihood of compromise via password
> > access to the root account, but no-one was particularly keen on
> > the approach he proposed, so one different way to do it is to
> > improve the strength of the root
> > password". As bcl's mail explicitly says:
> >
> >
https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2015-January/msg00030...
>
> That's not the point at all, which is, is it correct policy to
> activate a sub-change in a rejected change proposal?
It's *not* a sub-change in a rejected change proposal. It wasn't part
of the rejected change proposal at all.
That'd seem to make it less appropriate of a change. However, what I'm
drawing on from that proposal is:
Scope
Proposal owners: to communicate with the Fedora maintainers of
packages: Anaconda, OpenSSH, GNOME, etc.
Other developers: packages like Anaconda, GNOME etc. need to update
their workflow to enable compulsory non-root user account creation and
ensure good password strength for it.
> And is it prudent to dig heels in when there's been more negative
> feedback on that change presented on anaconda-devel@ and test@ than
> positive? I can't even find positive feedback except from the
> original change owner.
Um. Take a step back, relax, and look at the timeframe here.
bcl mailed the list *yesterday*. He hasn't posted back to the thread
since. You should give someone a hell of a lot more than one day
before you start talking about 'digging heels in'.
Um, you realize that correcthorse is disqualified even though it's
more than 8 characters, right?
> I was thinking of this one
>
>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy/Definitions
that whole thing is obsolete, the Change process replaced the Feature
process. Nothing with 'Feature' in its URL is current any more.
Is there a bit recycling program?
--
Chris Murphy