On Thu, 2015-01-29 at 15:09 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Adam Williamson <
adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Seriously. Stop this. I have already asked people to stop
> assigning negative motivations to others without due cause. This
> is not being excellent to each other.
"Your user password for your computer is arbitrarily unacceptable to
the Fedora Project" is not being excellent either.
Come on, that's sophistry. You can't interpret code as a personal
insult.
(It's not 'arbitrary', anyway. It's using a well-known and widely-used
password quality library.)
>
> The anaconda-devel-list discussion couldn't really be clearer
> about the relationship to the Change proposal - the whole thread
> was kicked off by the Change owner:
>
>
https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2015-January/msg00026...
That change proposal was rejected, so how is it that one of its
proposed changes has managed to make it through to the installer
barely two weeks later?
It's not actually something that is part of the Change's scope, but an
alternative way to try and achieve the same goal: the overall thought
process was "well, what the Change proposer really wants is to reduce
the likelihood of compromise via password access to the root account,
but no-one was particularly keen on the approach he proposed, so one
different way to do it is to improve the strength of the root
password". As bcl's mail explicitly says:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2015-January/msg00030...
The substantive discussion on devel@ was centered on the sshd
portion, not changes to the installer enabling password quality
enforcement. That happened on anaconda-devel@ which most Fedora
users don't even monitor let alone participate. The main notice of
this change actually occurring happened for the first time in test@
which arguably most users also don't monitor.
If someone's interested in Fedora development, they need to read the
Fedora development mailing lists. *Any* code change is presumably of
interest to someone, or it wouldn't be done in the first place; this
is not a reason for us to go mailing users@ every time someone commits
to anaconda.
You can argue that the change is significant enough to be a Change, I
guess, though personally I don't think it really is, unless it affects
kickstart installs (in which case people would be surprised at their
kickstarts suddenly not working right any more - but I don't think it
does). It's a bit hard to argue about, though, since one of the things
the Change process appears to be missing is an actual definition of
what should be considered to constitute a 'Change', exactly. It's thus
impossible to declare conclusively that X or Y *must* be a Change,
unless FESCo has stated it or something. You can suggest that it
should be, but it's impossible to make a completely definitive
declaration since there's literally no basis on which you could do
that outside of a formal FESCo vote or something.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Policy
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net