Ainsi parlait Denis HAVLIK :
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
>
> + > If there is demand for an aplication, and one of the volunteers (folks
> who + > are allowed to upload stuff) builds it, he/she can upload it and
> put the + > pack in "testing" status imediately. When testing is done, and
> the + > users are happy, he can move the packs to "done" area.
> + > Uploading for cooker contribs too is recomended, but I have no mean to
> + > enforce this.
>
> + Yes you can: just prevent new packages to appears by checking against
> + main and contrib in cooker branch. This will force them to either
> + forward their request to contributers, or ask for a contributer status
> + themselves.
>
> I will not do so, sorry. I am very happy with the results of RPM-voting
> system, and I'm not going to do anything that could make it look like a
> "second choice" to Club Volunteers.
I don't see what makes backporting a second-choice. Moreover, i never
pretended people should either have the right of backporting existing package
or have the right to introduce new ones.
> On the contrary, all contributions should go trough RPM-voting system,
> which is superior to standard contributing path (automatic advertising of
> work, peer review, etc.), and the current "contributors" stuff should be
> merged with "club volunteers".
That's not my point. I'm not arguing about the use of system x vs system y,
i'm arguing about the very point of introducing something new elsewhere than
in the develoment branch.
You were refering to Debian in a previous mail, i don't think you could
introduce a new package in stable release for instance...
BTW, current contribution system also have automatic advertising system
(changelog list) and peer review (cooker list).
--
No matter how many resources you have, it is never enough.
-- Murphy's Computer Laws n�1
