On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 04:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Sure it was, there were 2 models before the merge, and one resulting
model,
which happens to be close to the better one (the Extras one). The Core model
wasn't lost entirely, its good points persisted, e.g. there's an updates-
testing which is actively used, whereas Extras just pushed everything
directly. But as to when to provide new versions, the Extras model is
basically what we ended up with, and to me that's just further evidence that
it was the right one.
We didn't "basically" end up with one or the other. We have both,
depending on which packages you look at and which maintainers. If the
"extras" style (which was never ubiquitous even within Extras itself)
spread, it's because our leadership (which I was a part of at the time)
did a poor job in stating our goals for the operating system, and just
hoped that our maintainers would see things the way we saw them.
Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case, and the "anything goes"
kind of mentality spread either by example (of the bad), by lack of
example (of the good), and by letting it continue unchecked.
It's time for some checking.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca:
http://identi.ca/jkeating