Bart Smaalders wrote: > > Perhaps you could simply accept that we're going to have a networked > repository, rather than raising the same pointless issue on every > FOSS case that comes up. We simply cannot wait to begin integrating > more FOSS into Nevada until we switch packaging systems.
Nobody says we have to wait until the repository is up and running. The real issue is that it is impossible to do the architectural review without knowing the characteristics and requirements of the repository. The need to put forward a case of the characteristics of the repository is the real bottle neck here. How can anybody comment on the architecture without knowing the new rules? It doesn't have to be implemented, just documented. After all, if we know that there will be the 3 classes we referred to earlier, (core, layered, wild west) then we can classify each FOSS case and apply the new requirements. This will speed the latter two case types, allow the integration into the current SFW gate with the understanding that the bits will be re-deployed when the repository comes online and all in all make things go much more smoothly. Up to now all there has been is speculation about what should/could/might be in the future. So absent any case that stipulates the attributes of the repository and the rules used to assess the FOSS cases that will use them, the only choice is to use the current rules. And therefore Garrett's comments are valid and reasonable.And until the repository case is filed, they will apply to each new FOSS case and we will see the same objections over and over. If you think that the process is taking too long, then your course is clear. Get some new rules down on paper and submit them for review. Then at least we will have some basis for review the future cases. Brian Utterback
