Adam Williamson píše v Ne 31. 10. 2010 v 18:06 -0700:
On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 04:37 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Yet another blatant example of
> failure of the Update Acceptance Criteria, needlessly exposing our users to
> critical vulnerabilities.
Kevin, could you *please* not word things like that? There's just no
need for it.
I already wrote this to -test a couple of days ago:
and we're discussing it there. I think the thread demonstrates things
tend to go much more constructively if you avoid throwing words like
'blatant' and 'failure' and 'needlessly' around.
Did we not
fail our users? Was there a real need to fail them? (As a
non-native speaker, I won't judge the relative merits of "blatant" vs.
We designed a policy,
put it into effect, now we're observing how well it works and we can
modify its implementation on the fly. It doesn't need to be done in an
Given that _this exact scenario_ was repeatedly brought up
very start of the update acceptance criteria proposals, I think some
frustration is quite justified. This situation is not really a
surprise, and Fedora did not have to unnecessarily expose users to a
vulnerability in order to relearn this lesson.
In addition to being constructive about remedying the situation,
shouldn't we try to be more constructive about _not introducing such
situations_ in the first place?