FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[Seth Vidal]

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:

> Seth Vidal wrote:
>> I do not agree Kevin's view is incumbent. I think what's happened is we
>> exploded in size when extras came in and when we merged core and extras
>> and we lost control over the process and over assimilating what was the
>> CORE process onto extras.
>
> But the Core process wasn't as conservative as you seem to think. KDE
> updates have always been pushed, e.g. FC4 was upgraded from 3.4 to 3.5, and
> bugfix updates have also always been pushed.
>
> But even assuming the Extras process "won" over the Core one, that just
> shows that the Extras process was better.

I never said it 'won' and I don't think you could make the argument that 
it did.

Winning implies competition. That wasn't the case.

Think of what Jesse and I are describing like this:

When you're working a lot and involved in a great deal of activity you 
will often make a big mess. At some point you have to step back and tidy 
up the mess you made and tie up loose ends.

Fedora's been active and growing and we've made a lot of messes, this is 
just about managing our growth and tidying up our messes.

We've made a mess and as a member of fesco I'd expect you to be helping in 
cleaning up the mess, not making it worse b/c fesco HAS to be about the 
long term growth and sustainability of fedora.

-sv