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

Re: best practices for updates in stable releases



Patrice Dumas wrote:
There are some places where some interaction happens, and some checks of
guidelines, are possible, like in reviews. Also some specific cases
have policies (missing maintainer, who is allowed to change other people packages). But in general maintainers are free to do whatever they want
in their packages.

In fact I think that it is a good thing, except when bugs are not fixed,
even though the bug reporter provided with a fix.
Great words!
Free is freedom is freedom with all pluses and minuses! Freedom it is not only be free doing want you want, it is also allow do it for others!

Sure, please do not threat it as proclamation to anarchy!

We have guidelines, and I believe what most of maintainers tried be closer to it. We pedantic check following to it in step where it may be formalized: In review request, in reviewing, in sponsoring, in guidelines change, in many other situation. But we can't even try apply any sanctions to maintainer to its treat some very common recommendations like [1]

Sorry, but it is only recommendations. F.e. how you are suggest apply any sanction by formulation like (cite [1]): "New upstream releases should not necessarily be pushed to release branches. The benefit of the bugfixes and new features should be weighed up against the risk of regressions.". How it should be weighed? Who should weight it? For what scale in last??? Must we call FESCO on each update to vote it? Do karma absolutely necessarily (so, some rigidity and qualification here even I wish see, but it is subject another thread)? Any things?

[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Package_update_guidelines


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