Summary from yesterdays (mini) FESCo meeting

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Sat Dec 30 10:44:15 UTC 2006


On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 10:48:36AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > The packaging policy does evolve, and will continue to evolve, and
> > I do my best to adhere to the stated guidance. If I'm not reading
> > over the guidelines as I do any reviews, I'm garunteed to miss a
> > policy change.
> 
> > Right now I spend too much time reading over all the guidance
> > looking for changes everytime I do a review.
> 
> The scenario you describe is unacceptable.

Only because you trimmed the part where Jeff is asking for keeping a
checklist up2date with change dates attached to the items :)

> You should only feel the need to revisit the guidelines if they contain
> things that contradict with your own packaging habits.

so how will you know that the guidelines didn't intorduce something
against your packaging habits? We can't define quality control of
packages based on "packaging habits", can we?

> However, if you read them the first time and find nothing unusual,
> nothing special, there is no need to revisit them

Things change in time ...

> > I can't reasonably assume that the guidelines I remember from 3 months
> > ago are completely appropriate now.
> 
> Who cares? Three months in the future you should still be able to spot
> questionable packaging techniques which require a closer look. All that
> matters is whether a package contains anything nasty prior to approval or
> after approval (when the packager can reintroduce severe packaging bugs
> unless this is noticed via commits-list).

So why do we have a packaging committee at all? We should freeze the
packaging guidelines for all times if "noone cares that guidleines may
change withing 3 months".

I think this clearly shows why detailed approvals are needed. If I now
see a one-liner "APPROVAL" by for example M. Schwendt, I will not know
whether he has checked against any changes in the guidelines or review
process the last three months or maybe more. Or better said I will
know that he must be missing all changes against his own packaging
habits if the above statements are all true.
-- 
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/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20061230/c9b977f9/attachment.sig>


More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list