FESCo Meeting Summary for 2008-08-20

[Alan Dunn]

As one of "others working on this", and having talked to David today,
I can assure you that this doesn't particularly change our plans one
way or another - you will continue to see more formal methods tools.
(Actually, I have a related package waiting for a CVS request, and
likely another automated theorem prover will be ready for review this
weekend or soon after.)

- Alan

On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Karsten Hopp <karsten at redhat.com> wrote:
> Richard W.M. Jones schrieb:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 08:29:12PM -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
>>>
>>> * FESCo voted against making the Prover(1) a feature, since they felt it
>>> didn't meet the criteria(2) of being a new feature.  Note: This isn't to
>>> say that this isn't a good thing, but they felt the target audience was
>>> fairly limited.
>>>     1. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Provers
>>>     2. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy/Definitions
>>
>> It's very disappointing that this isn't considered a feature, largely
>> (so it seems from the IRC log) because the target audience is
>> considered "very limited".
>>
>> Although provers are used only by a few experts to check that software
>> is correct, the benefits of using formally checked software
>> (functions, data structures, libraries, etc.) accrue to all users of
>> that software.
>>
>> I hope that David & others working on this don't get discouraged and
>> this work continues, perhaps as a Fedora SIG.
>>
>> Rich.
>>
>
> +1, please don't get discouraged when FESCo rejects a feature proposal.
> Rejecting something as a feature doesn't mean that the package isn't
> accepted
> into fedora. It just means that it doesn't met the requirements described in
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy/Definitions#Features.
>
>
>   Karsten
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>