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.
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'.
that whole thing is obsolete, the Change process replaced the Feature
process. Nothing with 'Feature' in its URL is current any more.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net