On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 21:30 -0800, John Poelstra wrote: > Kevin Kofler said the following on 02/28/2010 03:41 PM Pacific Time: > > Till Maas wrote: > >> My proposal: If it passes all AutoQA tests and matches the criteria by > >> Kevin Koffler[0], then the update is ok, except that critical path > >> packages should be inspected more carefully. > >> > >> [0] > >> [http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-February/131570.html > > > > I think I've written more complete writeups in earlier mailing list posts, > > it may make sense to dig them up. > > > > It would make more sense to end the madness that is this mail thread and > start a wiki page that clearly outlines your position. You lost me about > 200 posts ago.
+1 One thing I would suggest being considered in an alternative proposal is a compromise policy for specific stacks or non-critical path packages. For example, if the standard policy affecting me as a GNOME user is that major changes will be confined to new releases (my very strong personal preference) then I don't personally much care if it is official policy that KDE is allowed an exception to rebase on some other schedule. Jon. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
