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

[Kevin Kofler]

Seth Vidal wrote:
> Winning implies competition. That wasn't the case.

Sure it was, there were 2 models before the merge, and one resulting model, 
which happens to be close to the better one (the Extras one). The Core model 
wasn't lost entirely, its good points persisted, e.g. there's an updates-
testing which is actively used, whereas Extras just pushed everything 
directly. But as to when to provide new versions, the Extras model is 
basically what we ended up with, and to me that's just further evidence that 
it was the right one.

> 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.

Except I don't see how what we're doing now is a mess.

> 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.

Again, I fail to see that mess. To me we're actually doing a great job!

> 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.

Sorry, but I don't see how the current situation would not be sustainable or 
would impede growth in the long term, it has worked perfectly fine for 
years. On the contrary, I think losing one of our biggest points of 
distinction from other distributions would be a serious impediment to long 
term growth and sustainability of Fedora.

        Kevin Kofler