On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 01:11:47PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 14:36 -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Bill Nottingham notting@redhat.com wrote:
<snip> > Take a random downstream app. (Firefox is an example, but there are many > others.) Right now, it only needs to track a single version of python, > or a single auth framework, even if it may be used on any desktop or any > spin. The implication is that in some sort of future with SIG-specific > conflicting frameworks, this downstream app maintainer now must be familiar > with, and handle *all* of the frameworks, even though they're not > specifcally a part of any SIG. That's sort of a rotten thing to do to > Joe Random Maintainer. > > You could say that the SIG needs to then supply people to handle every > potential downstream app, but that's also not nice, and is going to lead > to fun coordination with updates. <snip>
I don't think that's an issue either, I'm not proposing we change anything such that it could cause problems. I'm saying the way things are now works and I don't understand the desire to change it.
The way things are now "works" because of status quo. We tell anybody who wants to change status quo to go start a fork and do it there.
Wait... The entire list of times I can remember someone being encouraged to take their contributions elsewhere are:
1) Kernel modules 2) Non-free software 3) Free software with legal issues 4) I think something to do with packaging content may have resulted in something but I don't know anything about the outcome there.
Who's been told to fork Fedora because of the status-quo-target-audience?
-Toshio