kevin.kofler at chello.at
Thu Jun 10 02:59:30 UTC 2010
Luke Macken wrote:
> Neither of you have mentioned "your" definition of the word "success".
> Care to enlighten us?
Success is the achievement of a worthwhile goal. If the original goal which
was set is worthless, "succeeding" at it is meaningless.
> Now, if the policies that are being approved do not actually benefit the
> greater good of the community, we have bigger problems.
Yet that's exactly the problem we're having. :-(
We're being pushed towards more and more bureaucracy such as FORCED use of
updates-testing without drawing any lessons from our project history:
* Fedora Extras had no testing requirements, in fact it didn't even HAVE a
testing repository. All builds were pushed directly to the stable
repository. It worked great, to the point where Core merged with it.
* Fedora Legacy had stringent QA requirements very similar to the ones which
are about to be enforced now: updates could not move out of testing without
either a minimum amount of positive feedback or a timeout (which had to be
introduced because otherwise packages would never move out of testing).
Feedback was counted separately for each distro version, just as our new
policy will do it, which made it nearly impossible to get the required
positive feedback for some releases. Over time, the amount of required
positive feedback and the timeout had to be reduced several times because
the system was just not working. In the end, Fedora Legacy failed, because
it was impossible to deliver security updates in a timely manner with that
kind of QA requirements.
So why are we now going to use the Fedora Legacy model over the Fedora
Extras one? Does FESCo really want Fedora to fail?
More information about the devel