Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17)
kevin.kofler at chello.at
Sun Nov 21 03:09:42 UTC 2010
Adam Williamson wrote:
> I don't think that's true. One of the goals of the policy was to reduce
> the volume of updates that are pushed just because hey, it's easy to do,
> right? So if the policy is discouraging people from pushing trivial
> updates it's actually *achieving its goals*.
This was never officially the goal of the policy, though it has definitely
been on some of the proponents' hidden agenda.
I really don't get the point of reducing the number of updates just for the
sake of reducing the number of updates. (Almost) all updates are pushed for
a reason! (Very few aren't, and there the goal should be to prevent THOSE.
But they're not a significant proportion anyway.) Don't push the update ==
keep the bug unfixed! How's that a desirable goal to achieve?
I also think that reducing the number of updates by making pushing updates a
PITA is a very poor solution to the problem, even if it's seen as one (I
don't personally see the problem at all), since it frustrates maintainers.
Package maintainers are our most important resource, making their work a
PITA is bound to backfire!
We should trust a maintainer's judgement on what updates are worth pushing
and when they can be considered stable. Making such calls is the core
competence of a package maintainer. Software just cannot make better
decisions on those points than an experienced human packager.
More information about the devel