Wording of "Previously in Core" Procedure

[Tom 'spot' Callaway]

On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 05:16 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> Yes, I am opposed to it, because
> 
> * Packages formerly having been part of Core can, at least to some
> extend, be trusted, because they had been exposed to "testing by the
> masses" and to RH QA. - This doesn't necessarily apply to packages in
> rawhide.
> 
> * This could open backdoors to RH employees to push packages into
> Extras. To me, FE should treat RH employees as arbitrary contributors
> "which just happen to have RH email addresses".

I tend to agree with Ralf. While I think it is unlikely that RH
employees will backdoor things into Extras (because me and Greg will put
a beatdown on anyone that tries it), the "Previously in Core" is a
grandfather clause for old packages.

And honestly? I'd like to see us lose it entirely. Do we really need
this loophole? I'd wager that most packages in Core will pass a review
quickly when they need to move to Extras, and those that would not,
well, need to be fixed anyways.

~spot
-- 
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!