[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [fab] Architecture Policy.

On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 00:26 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:31:25 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 11:18 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > > Have you *READ* the proposal? 
> > 
> > Of course I've read the proposal. Have _you_ actually tried dealing with
> > Extras package-monkeys recently; trying to get them to fix a problem in
> > their packages which is even slightly outside their own use case?
> Does this refer to just  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/208774  or would you
> like to provide more examples?

I didn't have that specific bug in mind, no.

If feel that to provide specific examples of 'package-monkey' behaviour
_would_ be impolite to the individuals concerned -- regardless of the
terminology I use; I'd be saying "I'm concerned by the quality of
maintenance from people like $foo; we need to make sure we keep them in
order and not let them find any extra excuses not to maintain their
package properly."

I merely expressed concern at the _possibility_ that this might happen,
and I seem to have been assured that it won't be allowed to happen. So
that's good.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]