Fedora 18: WebApp and httpd 2.4 configuration

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 03:06:14 +0000
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 01/08/2013 02:10 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:

...snip...

> > Well, I'm not sure that was a great precedent to set, if we're
> > going to treat it as a precedent...
> 
> What else is it?

A single decision? 

I can't speak for others in FESCo, but If I had intended this to be
some kind of general rule we would have agreed to that general
rule. :) 

> The alternative is that fesco single out individual and forced him to 
> fix brokenness in other components which ironically already had been
> broken?

There were a number of things going on. It was late in the cycle, we
wanted someone who understood the change to fix it, and the feature
owner was pushing to avoid reverting their feature. 

Additionally this experiment didn't help anything get fixed faster
sadly. I'd probably avoid these kinds of things moving forward unless
the feature owner wanted to do so. 

> Which one do you prefer?

I'd prefer to avoid this sidetrack and actually see what we can do to
fix the issue of this thread. 

Can we get back on topic here and drop the confrontational stance?

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20130107/450133ac/attachment.sig>