Heads up - Anaconda 22.17 will enforce 'good' passwords

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2015-01-29 at 16:24 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> 
> > It's not actually something that is part of the Change's scope, 
> > but an alternative way to try and achieve the same goal: the 
> > overall thought process was "well, what the Change proposer really 
> > wants is to reduce the likelihood of compromise via password 
> > access to the root account, but no-one was particularly keen on 
> > the approach he proposed, so one different way to do it is to 
> > improve the strength of the root
> > password". As bcl's mail explicitly says:
> > 
> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2015-January/msg00030.html
> 
> That's not the point at all, which is, is it correct policy to 
> activate a sub-change in a rejected change proposal? 

It's *not* a sub-change in a rejected change proposal. It wasn't part 
of the rejected change proposal at all.

> And is it prudent to dig heels in when there's been more negative 
> feedback on that change presented on anaconda-devel@ and test@ than 
> positive? I can't even find positive feedback except from the 
> original change owner.

Um. Take a step back, relax, and look at the timeframe here.

bcl mailed the list *yesterday*. He hasn't posted back to the thread 
since. You should give someone a hell of a lot more than one day 
before you start talking about 'digging heels in'.

> I was thinking of this one 
> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy/Definitions

that whole thing is obsolete, the Change process replaced the Feature 
process. Nothing with 'Feature' in its URL is current any more.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net