2009/2/26 Jesse Keating <[email protected]>: > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 15:13 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> >> Well I would like to have it that it actually has bodhi votes before >> it can be moved. We can have a process for the number of votes needed, >> but I would rather have something getting a couple of +1's that can be >> tracked than a 1 month timeframe and no one looking at it. > > Small note, it was overly protective processes like these that > contributed to the fall of Fedora Legacy. It's a really really hard > balance to strike :/ >
Well I didn't think of it as overly protective when I wrote it, but that is normally the case isnt it. I figured we have a small subset of packages that we maintain... and we have a process where stuff may sit in testing for a month but we have no feedback on whats there. Instead I figured we could have a process where we could see that a package was tested, by whom, and with what and could be considered 'stable'. My current I-havent-had-a-good-night-sleep-in-a-week feeling is that calling our repositories testing and stable is misleading. They are just snapshots that are more accurately called "this-month" and "next-month". My guess is that going further than that would require the resources that people pay Red Hat for :). -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
