Board efforts: scope, concept, and permission?

Mike McGrath mmcgrath at
Tue Feb 2 20:29:00 UTC 2010

On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Adam Miller wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting at> wrote:
> <Snip>
> > Would that mean that users who don't start with one of these 'products'
> > get to magically try and choose which implementation of which they want?
> > Perhaps even mix and match, leaving QA and the developers to sort out
> > the results.
> >
> > Furthermore, you then leave 'downstream' higher-level packages and
> > applications having to, for example, code to PolicyKit0, PolicyKit1, or
> > consolehelper, depending on what each 'product' use case might use. Or,
> > having to build their python extensions simultaneously for python2.4, python2.6,
> > and python3.0. These sorts of things would be extremely painful for
> > developers, and would bloat the QA matrix excessively.
> >
> > Not to reduce the debate to too much of a soundbite, but it almost
> > seems like attempting to decide whether we want Fedora to be Debian,
> > or to be something useful for users of it. I'd always pick the latter...
> <Snip>
> I think the responsibility of these things should be placed upon the
> SIG members who perform the functions from within these different
> groups. Why not have a QA person from each SIG work together with the
> larger QA efforts instead of potentially against them?

QA is a particular skill set, not every sig has a QA member and requiring
it wouldn't work either.  I feel it's like assuming that just because I've
done turbogears apps that someone would ask me to do CSS as well.  I don't
think it's safe to assume that because someone can put a spin together
that they have the tools and knowledge to do proper QA on it.


More information about the devel mailing list