Voting: repotag for EPEL

[Axel Thimm]

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/attachments/20070406/04e9881c/attachment.sig>