On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Matthew Woehlke <mw_triad@spew> wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> But that high-impact bugs in some Fedora Updates have slipped
>> through, because their package maintainers had been willing to take
>> the risk, and that has prompted some people to try to change that
>> part of Fedora.
> That's *exactly* what I am afraid of... that Fedora is going to get
> turned into a distribution that is afraid to take risks.
> We have plenty of those already. We NEED a distribution willing to take
> risks, because that is how progress happens. (Or at least, how it
> happens at a non-glacial pace.)
Managing risk does not mean running away from it. The problem with
many in the conversation is an implicit assumption that people are
wanting that by default. There could be multiple ways to manage risk..
its a matter of finding out if a method is a good one, a bad one, can
be improved, or can be thrown away. So some people would like the
quality of updates to go up, some people would like to have what they
consider un-needed bureaucracy go away, and there may be ways to do
both... but first people have to sit down and listen to each other
versus throwing emails back and forth about how horrible someone else
Stephen J Smoogen.
Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for?
-- Robert Browning
devel mailing list