FESCo Meeting Summary for 2008-03-20
Horst H. von Brand
vonbrand at inf.utfsm.cl
Fri Mar 21 17:47:50 UTC 2008
"Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 22:09 -0500, Callum Lerwick wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 01:18 +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > > Fedora is about showcasing the latest technology, if each time a new technology
> > > is introduced, we have to wait months to get a packaging guideline for it, and
> > > all packages using the new technology are blocked on that, where does that
> > > leave us?
> > I've always viewed guidelines as being a codification of best practices
> > that have been proven in production. With that in mind, the whole idea
> > of writing guidelines *before* packages have been put in to production
> > is completely backwards. The writing of new guidelines should go
> > hand-in-hand with the deployment of the first few "new technology"
> > packages. It shouldn't block it. The finalization and ratification
> > should happen *after* they have proven themselves in practice.
> I don't fundamentally disagree with that, but the problem in the Java
> case was that we had a lot of packages which were being done in several
> different, incompatible ways, and no one in the larger reviewer pool was
> capable of doing qualified reviews of those packages. The packages
> already in the distribution were of widely varying quality, and many new
> packages were being "reviewed" as two man efforts (two packagers tag
> team and review each others packages by simply saying "APPROVED").
Essentially, then, several ways of handling the Java packages where
competing. No consensus came out on its own, even after asking nicely;
the comittee then put its foot down hard.
That way of handling such cases is OK with me.
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513
More information about the devel