On 2022-11-28 08:51, Adam Williamson wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with this, because practically speaking,
there's
very little "oversight" of anything in Fedora.
Is that a disagreement, though? When I say that packages are allowed to
update without oversight, what I mean is that while the policy says that
should or must request approval from FESCo for some types of updates
(oversight), that doesn't happen in practice. The changes I suggested
reflect the current practice, I think.
But, again, I'm not entirely sure, and I'm also not entirely sure that
current practice is what we actually want as a project.
writing
down notes about what gets "enforced" and what doesn't might give the
wrong impression.
Right. And that why I'm proposing that some of the language that
currently suggests enforcement and oversight be removed.
There are also leaf nodes we care about a lot. Firefox is a leaf
node,
more or less, but we do care about updates to it because it's an
*important* leaf node. Ultimately you use Fedora to*do stuff*, and a
lot of the doing-stuff packages are leaf nodes...
Firefox might not be a good example of your intent in this case because
it gets Major-version updates (in the semver sense: API-breaking
updates) essentially as early as possible, without any FESCo approval.
Yes, of course we care that it works, but it's an example of a package
that doesn't reflect the policy in any way. And I think everyone agrees
that it shouldn't. For the non-ESR release branch, the current practice
is the only workable one.