On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 08:46 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:38 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > > On 08/19/2016 08:29 AM, Kai Engert wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 2016-08-18 at 22:29 -0400, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > > > > > > > > Beta sounds a bit late to be introducing such a change unilaterally. > > > > Should this not be going through FESCo at this point? > > > > > > Then I suggest that we make the change immediately for Fedora 25, to allow > > > it to > > > be included in the delayed alpha release. > > > > > > > It will absolutely not be accepted as a Freeze Exception. Changes of this > > scale > > are far too high-risk and will almost certainly result in another schedule > > slip. > > I'm having a hard time following the argument of scale and risk here > when it pertains to schedule slip. The package itself is fairly > self-contained and isn't likely to cause issues against the actual > Alpha test criteria. Can you elaborate why you think doing this as an > FE would cause a slip?
I've filed a FESCo ticket, asking for approval for this change in Fedora: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1616 The suggested change is limited to modify static lists. It will change two existing configuration choices to have identical effect. The only risk is that potentially, we find software that can no longer connect to a very small amount of Internet sites (because the site's certificates requires one of the legacy CAs to be trusted). That risk is very small, and doesn't affect the stability of the Fedora OS. Kai -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
