Wording of "Previously in Core" Procedure

[Warren Togami]

Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> 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.

It is silly to think that this could be used as a "backdoor" into 
Extras, but I do see a detriment in too quickly letting in stuff that 
hasn't been tested as much as a rawhide cycle and stable release.  I 
therefore withdraw this idea.  Sticking "previously released in a stable 
Core distro" is fine.

> 
> 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.

I entirely disagree.  This exception has saved us a lot of busy work so 
it should remain in effect.  The set of things "previously released in a 
stable Core distro" is finite and small, so I really don't see a problem 
here.

Warren Togami
wtogami at redhat.com