On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 11:25:46AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Axel Thimm schrieb: > > On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 01:49:26PM -0600, Bernard Johnson wrote: > >> Axel Thimm wrote: > > > > Gosh, contrary to my vanishing sanity I succumb, and I fed the votings > > with some notes, I even did some research with my FPC hat on on what > > the best implementation would be and added that as a note, too. Which > > since it was just *my* FPC hat is just a suggestion about how the FPC > > may attack this, it is neither part of the EPEL voting, nor a > > guarantee that the FPC will do so. There may be even smarter and > > better implementations. > > The critique I issued multiple times somewhere else in this thread still > is the same: I don't want to give a binding vote on a "Should EPEL carry > a repotag? If yes, the technical details will be delegated to the > Packaging Committee." question at this point of time. I want to see what > burden a repotag might create for packagers before I'll feel safe to > bless repotags. So I would vote "no" to currently; but I would vote > "yes" to a question "Should we further investigate the use of a repotag > and the technical details how to realize them", as long as someone is > willing to do the investigating work. Since you already brought that up and I already answered to that, and now it's a rehash of the rehash, I'm just going to quote. On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 11:04:49AM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 10:19:29AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > I don't care what they decide, but in this case I think it's > > [FPC's] business [...] > > > > People [of the EPEL committee] that vote should know what they > > vote about to make the decision, and that's not the case here > > afaics. > > You need to decide, do you make it FPC's call or not? You can't have > it both ways, e.g. put the FPC through making a decision and then > turning it down. On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 12:02:40PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > Aka postpone, work w/o a repotag and later noone wants to touch it > again. Aka effectivly vote against it, but pretend we care. Why > didn't you "investigate" when it was discussed? Everyone else > including the FPC did. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpWwtXmwkaj0.pgp
Description: PGP signature