So someone wanted to use rpmautospec and was willing to do the work, putting things together as an opt-in feature. Perfect.
Now, I don't see any problem if some time later someone revisits the topic and proposes to go further. I don't see anything unfriendly here. Everything was set or decided at some point, and nothing could ever be changed if we don't allow ourselves to change our minds and be free to make new proposals. That said, we are also free to reject those proposals, and I'm -1 here. As of today, I think it's fine as an opt-in feature, and I'm even using it for some small uncomplicated packages. But I don't think it should be the default with an opt-out. Iñaki On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 at 14:56, Emmanuel Seyman <emman...@seyman.fr> wrote: > * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek [08/04/2024 09:02] : > > > > Well, you and Kevin see "salami tactics" (whatever that may be), > > FTR, I have no idea what "salami tactics" is. > > > while I see normal engineering practice: some new idea is hatched, > > it's implemented and used narrowly, them it's applied by default > > and more widely, and possibly at the end previous methods are > > deprecated. > > This sounds acceptable but is not at all how these changes are proposed. > > An proposal is made, stating explicity that it will be opt-in or target > a subset of the target audience and never even suggesting that the scope > might one day be expanded. > > It is accepted based on that premise and, after a while, changes are > made to make the change default or opt-out, leaving the people who would > not have accepted it had they known they would be forced to use it with > no recourse. > > This is unfriendly (thus violating one of Fedora's core principles) at > best and deceitful at worst. > > > The alternative would be to have "grand plans" where we decide that > > some technology will be used by default and mandatory before we deploy > > it widely and get feedback. > > Another alternative would be not lie to the target audience by > initially claiming that the change is opt-in. Yet another alternative > would be to not go back on this claim. > > > I think that if you think this through, you'll realize that the > > "salami tactic" is quite reasonable. > > I don't but wish to thank you for the condescending tone nonetheless. > > Emmanuel > -- > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue > -- Iñaki Úcar
-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
